On 2010-06-19 17:54-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
> I updated my Ubuntu version and that seems to have solved the problem.
Thanks for following my suggestion. Your success means we can write off the
nasty and puzzling results you were obtaining to some incompatibility of Qt4
with your old set of Ubu
Alan W. Irwin wrote:
>
> If there is some barrier to running that experiment or it is more trouble
> than it is worth, then the last resort is to update your hard drive to the
> latest Ubuntu version to see whether that solves the issue. Of course, that
> is an irrevocable change (unless you are w
On 2010-06-18 13:56-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
> Hazen Babcock wrote:
>> Alan W. Irwin wrote:
>>> On 2010-05-27 22:58+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
>>>
Well clearly the output files should be properly closed. I've now fixed
that. You could try again, although I don't think that is the problem.
Hazen Babcock wrote:
> Alan W. Irwin wrote:
>> On 2010-05-27 22:58+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
>>
>>> Well clearly the output files should be properly closed. I've now fixed
>>> that. You could try again, although I don't think that is the problem.
>>> You could try again to check. Potentially more int
On 2010-06-01 18:07-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
> BTW, we should revert the isGUI change before the release for the reasons
> that Andrew stated.
Done (revision 11050).
Alan
__
Alan W. Irwin
Astronomical research affiliation with Department of Physics and Astronomy,
Unive
Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> On 2010-05-27 22:58+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
>
>> Well clearly the output files should be properly closed. I've now fixed
>> that. You could try again, although I don't think that is the problem.
>> You could try again to check. Potentially more interesting are the open
>> pi
One thing which comes into my mind is, that if you run a KDE (aka
QT)-program in Gnome you usually use a qt-style which makes the GUI look
like it's a Gnome program (e.g.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=76633). I heard before that
this sometimes leads to problems, so maybe it's worth to te
On 2010-05-27 16:59-0700 Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> Hazen, have you double-checked yet that isGUI is false for your latest
> tests? Of course, even if isGUI is false, QApplication may
> partially or totally ignore that so it still may be using up some X resource
> shared with firefox. Alternatively,
On 2010-05-27 22:58+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 04:39:55PM -0400, Hazen Babcock wrote:
>> Andrew Ross wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 03:49:22PM -0400, Hazen Babcock wrote:
>
Are we sure that we are closing the QApplication properly?
>>>
>>> I think so, although most
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 04:39:55PM -0400, Hazen Babcock wrote:
> Andrew Ross wrote:
>> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 03:49:22PM -0400, Hazen Babcock wrote:
>>> Are we sure that we are closing the QApplication properly?
>>
>> I think so, although most programs would only create a QApplication once
>> at
Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> On 2010-05-27 20:22+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
>>
>> That's a possibility, but it still seems quite unlikely. Qt is very
>> widely
>> used, even with GNOME and I've not seen any reports of this. By the way
>> I'm also using KDE though.
>
> I agree. However, a much more likely
Andrew Ross wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 03:49:22PM -0400, Hazen Babcock wrote:
It really looks to me like it is consuming some finite system resource.
As I mentioned before the test will hang at the call to QApplication.
What I have now discovered however, is that if I close another GUI
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 03:49:22PM -0400, Hazen Babcock wrote:
> Alan W. Irwin wrote:
>> On 2010-05-27 20:22+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
>>>
>>> That's a possibility, but it still seems quite unlikely. Qt is very
>>> widely
>>> used, even with GNOME and I've not seen any reports of this. By the way
>
On 2010-05-27 15:49-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
> 1. test hangs at iteration 991
> 2. close Firefox
> 3. test finishes iteration 991 and now hangs at 992.
That is a most interesting result. The only way I can think of for
the two to interact that way is via consuming some X resource so I am glad
y
On 2010-05-27 20:22+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:00:32PM -0700, Alan Irwin wrote:
>> On 2010-05-27 12:03-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
>>
>>> Following your suggestion I simplified the test to the following:
>>>
>>> #!/bin/sh
>>>
>>> LIMIT=2000
>>>
>>> for((a=1; a<= LIMIT; a++)
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:00:32PM -0700, Alan Irwin wrote:
> On 2010-05-27 12:03-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
>
>> Following your suggestion I simplified the test to the following:
>>
>> #!/bin/sh
>>
>> LIMIT=2000
>>
>> for((a=1; a<= LIMIT; a++))
>> do
>>examples/c/x10c -dev pngqt -o test.png
>>
On 2010-05-27 12:03-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
> Following your suggestion I simplified the test to the following:
>
> #!/bin/sh
>
> LIMIT=2000
>
> for((a=1; a<= LIMIT; a++))
> do
>examples/c/x10c -dev pngqt -o test.png
> #examples/c/x26c -dev pngqt -o test.png -fam
>echo -n "$a"
> done
Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> Hazen, Andrew, and I have worked on this issue off list and
> here is the current status:
>
> Hazen gets inconsistently bad results for qt devices for Qt-4.5.1 and also
> for Qt-4.6.2. The inconsistency is that the errors do not appear for the
> same C
> examples for repeat
Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> Hazen, Andrew, and I have worked on this issue off list and
> here is the current status:
>
> Hazen gets inconsistently bad results for qt devices for Qt-4.5.1 and also
> for Qt-4.6.2. The inconsistency is that the errors do not appear for the
> same C
> examples for repeat
Hazen, Andrew, and I have worked on this issue off list and
here is the current status:
Hazen gets inconsistently bad results for qt devices for Qt-4.5.1 and also
for Qt-4.6.2. The inconsistency is that the errors do not appear for the
same C
examples for repeat runs of test_noninteractive. Late
Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> On 2010-05-22 10:36-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
>
>> Hazen Babcock wrote:
>>> On my system the tiffqt device appears to be hanging on example 26 when
>>> I run test_noninteractive in the build tree.
>>>
>>> Qt 4.5.1
>>> Linux hbabcock-laptop 2.6.27-17-generic #1 SMP Fri Mar 12
On 2010-05-22 10:36-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
> Hazen Babcock wrote:
>> On my system the tiffqt device appears to be hanging on example 26 when
>> I run test_noninteractive in the build tree.
>>
>> Qt 4.5.1
>> Linux hbabcock-laptop 2.6.27-17-generic #1 SMP Fri Mar 12 02:08:25 UTC
>> 2010 x86_64 GN
Hi Hazen:
On 2010-05-22 10:09-0400 Hazen Babcock wrote:
>
> On my system the tiffqt device appears to be hanging on example 26 when
> I run test_noninteractive in the build tree.
>
> Qt 4.5.1
> Linux hbabcock-laptop 2.6.27-17-generic #1 SMP Fri Mar 12 02:08:25 UTC
> 2010 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> cmake
Hazen Babcock wrote:
> On my system the tiffqt device appears to be hanging on example 26 when
> I run test_noninteractive in the build tree.
>
> Qt 4.5.1
> Linux hbabcock-laptop 2.6.27-17-generic #1 SMP Fri Mar 12 02:08:25 UTC
> 2010 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> cmake version 2.6-patch 4
> gcc (Ubuntu 4.
24 matches
Mail list logo
