Per Hedeland wrote:
Well, I must confess to not being well versed in C++ function
overloading (nor C++ in general in fact), but I seriously doubt that it
will make a difference even then, when we've hopefully had 64-bit
time_t's for quite some years - i.e. I assume that the second arg will
ensur
"Charles Kerr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Charles Kerr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>- const int diff_secs (std::max (1l, now-_time_started));
>>>+ const int diff_secs (std::max ((time_t)1, now-_time_started));
>>>
>>>Smells like a more correct fix to me -- does it pass muster on BSD?
boo posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
excerpted below, on Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:05:33 +0200:
> i also noticed that some 50mb files seem to not get decoded at all (no
> gui-freeze either), just like the issue with the incomplete files, but
> those files arent marked incomplete. all the parts get downloade
On 4/25/06, Charles Kerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I used sysprof to take a look at where uulib spends most of its time,
> and it turns out its top two bottlenecks were very tweakable.
> With this tweak, the `freeze' time while Pan's decoding and saving
> attachments is much shorter.
>
> Testers
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:56:49 -1000, Kevin Brammer wrote:
> I get
>
> patch: malformed patch at line 9: != Article::COMPLETE), NULL);
>
> guessing because of new lines or something. Anyone else?
It's just a guess, but did you read the message via a usenet newsreader
and gmane.org? Gmane ma
