tream patch to subversion trunk, as well as branches/1.4.x and
branches/1.3.x.
On 11/22/14 2:06 PM, roucaries bastien wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 6:58 PM, DRC wrote:
I can readily reproduce the failure with the supplied test case, but what
I'm tripping on right now is understanding why
happen again in the future.
On 11/22/14 2:06 PM, roucaries bastien wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 6:58 PM, DRC wrote:
I can readily reproduce the failure with the supplied test case, but what
I'm tripping on right now is understanding why a Huffman-encoded block can
grow so much larger
I can readily reproduce the failure with the supplied test case, but
what I'm tripping on right now is understanding why a Huffman-encoded
block can grow so much larger than the size of the source block (128
bytes.) While this test case is very unusual, there may be others out
there, and I wan
s more then 128 but this info should probably
> give the maintainers of libjpegturbo a bit more information to
> investigate this issue.
>
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 9:33 PM, DRC wrote:
>> I don't know why you would expect me to have tried that, given that there
>> was no r
es bastien wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 6:36 PM, DRC wrote:
I want exactly what I asked for: a way to reproduce this issue. Currently I
cannot. A backtrace from your machine is not helpful, as it does not tell
me anything regarding how the library is being used by ImageMagick.
Did you try
:57 PM, DRC wrote:
Happy to fix it, but I need to be able to reproduce it first, using only
libjpeg-turbo. Currently I cannot. I tried running
Here a backtrace, do you want to get some argument of the call function ?
#0 0x77067107 in __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at
../nptl/sysdeps/unix
Happy to fix it, but I need to be able to reproduce it first, using only
libjpeg-turbo. Currently I cannot. I tried running
jpegtran -optimize -rotate 270 003632r270.jpg >out.jpg
and
jpegtran -progressive -optimize -rotate 270 003632r270.jpg >out.jpg
with valgrind, and no issues were de
Bug-hunting at this level of detail is new to me, so forgive me if any
of this is rubbish. It seems to me that:
Debian 4.0 was broken in the sense that scripts edited by its version of
nano could fail. It seems the backslash continuation line syntax was
not preserved. This old version of nano c
8 matches
Mail list logo
