From: Javier K. <jk...@gm...> - 2009-02-22 14:07:31
|
Here are this morning's patches. I realized that I wasn't subscribed to gtkpod-devel (only -questions), so my previous mails might be blocked until a mailing list moderator approves them. If you want, I can send them again now that I'm subscribed to the list. The libgpod patches make a huge difference in start up and collection loading time. |
From: Javier K. <jk...@gm...> - 2009-02-22 14:09:29
|
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 15:07, Javier Kohen <jk...@gm...> wrote: > Here are this morning's patches. I realized that I wasn't subscribed to > gtkpod-devel (only -questions), so my previous mails might be blocked until > a mailing list moderator approves them. If you want, I can send them again > now that I'm subscribed to the list. > > The libgpod patches make a huge difference in start up and collection > loading time. > > > Here's a tiny addendum to that patch that fixes a potential bug (I don't know the data domain so well to determine whether in practice the bug is triggered). |
From: Christophe F. <te...@gn...> - 2009-02-22 16:17:14
|
Hi, Thanks a lot for all the investigation and the nice patches :) Javier Kohen wrote: > Here are this morning's patches. I realized that I wasn't subscribed > to gtkpod-devel (only -questions), so my previous mails might be > blocked until a mailing list moderator approves them. If you want, I > can send them again now that I'm subscribed to the list. I think they all made it through, you can check on http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.ipod.gtkpod that none of your mails are missing. For what it's worth, your five patches from yesterday to gtkpod look ok to me, but I'm not maintaining this piece of code so it's not up to me to commit them ;) > > The libgpod patches make a huge difference in start up and collection > loading time. > These ones look fine to me too, thanks again for all the investigation. I merged your "tiny addendum" patch with your get_playlist/get_mhip patch since they were changing the same function anyway, and I think this patch needs this little fix : > --- a/src/itdb_itunesdb.c > +++ b/src/itdb_itunesdb.c > @@ -1993,7 +1993,7 @@ static glong get_playlist (FImport *fimp, glong > mhyp_seek) > Itdb_Playlist *plitem = NULL; > FContents *cts; > GList *gl; > - gint32 pos_len; > + gint32 pos_len = 0; > Apart from that, things are looking good, I'll apply them to svn, hoping I didn't miss anything ;) Thanks, Christophe > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA > -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise > -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation > -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD > http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Gtkpod-devel mailing list > Gtk...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtkpod-devel |
From: Jorg S. <Jor...@gm...> - 2009-02-25 12:48:27
|
Hi, I'll leave the patches relating to libgpod to Christophe to submit. Patches 0002 looks fine to me. I'll try to look at patch 0004 another time. JCS. Javier Kohen wrote: > Here are this morning's patches. I realized that I wasn't subscribed > to gtkpod-devel (only -questions), so my previous mails might be > blocked until a mailing list moderator approves them. If you want, I > can send them again now that I'm subscribed to the list. > > The libgpod patches make a huge difference in start up and collection > loading time. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA > -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise > -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation > -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD > http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Gtkpod-devel mailing list > Gtk...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtkpod-devel |
From: Christophe F. <te...@gn...> - 2009-02-28 10:48:59
|
Hi, 2009/2/25 Jorg Schuler <Jor...@gm...>: > > I'll leave the patches relating to libgpod to Christophe to submit. > > Patches 0002 looks fine to me. I'll try to look at patch 0004 another time. I committed both patches (including the additionnal initialization which I mentionned in this thread). While patch 0004 looked fine to me when I read it, I'd really appreciate an additionnal review from you since you know this code more than I do :) I was thinking about making a 0.7.1 (yeah, that's much quicker than usual ;), do you know of any unfixed bug in libgpod 0.7.0 ? Thanks, Christophe |
From: Jorg S. <Jor...@gm...> - 2009-03-14 10:22:23
Attachments:
0004a_additional.diff
|
Christophe Fergeau wrote: > Hi, > > 2009/2/25 Jorg Schuler <Jor...@gm...>: > >> I'll leave the patches relating to libgpod to Christophe to submit. >> >> Patches 0002 looks fine to me. I'll try to look at patch 0004 another time. >> > > I committed both patches (including the additionnal initialization > which I mentionned in this thread). While patch 0004 looked fine to me > when I read it, I'd really appreciate an additionnal review from you > since you know this code more than I do :) > Looks fine to me as well, but I would suggest the attached addition. Let me know if I should submit it. > I was thinking about making a 0.7.1 (yeah, that's much quicker than > usual ;), do you know of any unfixed bug in libgpod 0.7.0 ? Shouldn't we wait another year before that ;-) No, I'm not aware of any particular problem with the possible exception of the double tracks appearing on the iPod reported by some people. Cheers, JCS. |
From: Christophe F. <te...@gn...> - 2009-03-14 15:56:25
|
Hi, 2009/3/14 Jorg Schuler <Jor...@gm...>: > Looks fine to me as well, but I would suggest the attached addition. Let me > know if I should submit it. This looks fine to me (preprend => prepend in the comment), but for the pos_comp changes, I'd rather have Javier opinion first since we had a similar function which was buggy because of some overflow or bad arith. I think your change is fine because we are dealing with gint values, but maybe I'm missing something. Christophe |
From: Javier K. <jk...@gm...> - 2009-03-14 16:20:35
|
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 16:56, Christophe Fergeau <te...@gn...> wrote: > Hi, > > 2009/3/14 Jorg Schuler <Jor...@gm...>: > > Looks fine to me as well, but I would suggest the attached addition. Let > me > > know if I should submit it. > > This looks fine to me (preprend => prepend in the comment), but for > the pos_comp changes, I'd rather have Javier opinion first since we > had a similar function which was buggy because of some overflow or bad > arith. I think your change is fine because we are dealing with gint > values, but maybe I'm missing something. Yes, it looks good to me because these are a) signed int, b) track positions, which technically won't be as large as to overflow the variable (or are they?) |