On 01/12/2012 05:46 PM, Petr Mladek wrote:
Ah, I am sorry for the troubles. I have somehow missed this mail. You
probably did not keep me in CC and I overlooked it on the mailing
list :-(
Sorry, likely I accidentally used Reply List instead of Reply All.
I think that the main problem is that
On 11/11/2011 09:36 AM, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 10/26/2011 09:00 PM, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 10/26/2011 01:55 PM, Petr Mladek wrote:
What is your preferred way of use?
What exactly do you hate and/or miss?
One problem is output of multiple (batched, like make subsequentcheck)
Stephan Bergmann píše v Čt 12. 01. 2012 v 11:37 +0100:
On 11/11/2011 09:36 AM, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 10/26/2011 09:00 PM, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
But today I had to find out that even a single invocation of the
sw/qa_complex test internally starts multiple soffice instances in a
row,
Does it make sense to do --log-file=valgrind.out.%p ?
August Sodora
aug...@gmail.com
(201) 280-8138
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Petr Mladek pmla...@suse.cz wrote:
Stephan Bergmann píše v Čt 12. 01. 2012 v 11:37 +0100:
On 11/11/2011 09:36 AM, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 10/26/2011
On 10/26/2011 09:00 PM, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 10/26/2011 01:55 PM, Petr Mladek wrote:
What is your preferred way of use?
What exactly do you hate and/or miss?
One problem is output of multiple (batched, like make subsequentcheck)
valgrind'ed invocations of soffice.bin is lost.
Another
Stephan Bergmann píše v St 26. 10. 2011 v 13:39 +0200:
On 10/03/2011 03:11 PM, Petr Mladek wrote:
Stephan Bergmann píše v Po 19. 09. 2011 v 11:02 +0200:
Petr,
following is an excerpt from #libreoffice-dev this morning:
sberg caolan, btw valgrind, is there any good reason for
On 10/26/2011 01:55 PM, Petr Mladek wrote:
What is your preferred way of use?
What exactly do you hate and/or miss?
One problem is output of multiple (batched, like make subsequentcheck)
valgrind'ed invocations of soffice.bin is lost.
Another problem is attaching a debugger