Re: webkit 1.2.7

2011-03-08 Thread Marco Peereboom
the bug has been fixed upstream thanks to dhill http://gitorious.org/webkitgtk/stable/commit/bd6bf8e203cabe7073d4880c64a1ab86ebc1264b On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 03:27:18PM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote: > On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 09:57:32PM -0500, Todd Carson wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 07:57:34A

Re: webkit 1.2.7

2011-03-08 Thread Landry Breuil
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 09:57:32PM -0500, Todd Carson wrote: > On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 07:57:34AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: > > I can confirm that backing that out fixes the regression. > > > > On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 09:28:58AM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote: > > > > > > > > Backing out > > > >

Re: webkit 1.2.7

2011-03-06 Thread Todd Carson
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 07:57:34AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: > I can confirm that backing that out fixes the regression. > > On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 09:28:58AM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote: > > > > > > Backing out > > > http://gitorious.org/webkitgtk/stable/commit/d842bb085aceec4fcfc392a7b76c92

Re: webkit 1.2.7

2011-03-06 Thread Marco Peereboom
I can confirm that backing that out fixes the regression. On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 09:28:58AM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote: > On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 06:14:53PM -0500, David Hill wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 11:00:00PM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote: > > :On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 03:48:51PM -06

Re: webkit 1.2.7

2011-03-06 Thread Landry Breuil
On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 06:14:53PM -0500, David Hill wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 11:00:00PM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote: > :On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 03:48:51PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: > :> It is definitively a regression. A bad one too. Maybe an interaction > :> with the lib that rend

Re: webkit 1.2.7

2011-03-05 Thread David Hill
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 11:00:00PM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote: :On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 03:48:51PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: :> It is definitively a regression. A bad one too. Maybe an interaction :> with the lib that renders the gifs? : :The only thing i see is https://bugs.webkit.org/show_

Re: webkit 1.2.7

2011-03-04 Thread Landry Breuil
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 03:48:51PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: > It is definitively a regression. A bad one too. Maybe an interaction > with the lib that renders the gifs? The only thing i see is https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46437, which touchs the Gif backend. See if reverting http

Re: webkit 1.2.7

2011-03-04 Thread Marco Peereboom
It is definitively a regression. A bad one too. Maybe an interaction with the lib that renders the gifs? On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 10:28:55PM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 07:16:47PM +0100, Dawe wrote: > > On Mar 04, 2011 11:22, Marco Peereboom wrote: > > > It seems that an

Re: webkit 1.2.7

2011-03-04 Thread Landry Breuil
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 07:16:47PM +0100, Dawe wrote: > On Mar 04, 2011 11:22, Marco Peereboom wrote: > > It seems that an old webkit bug is back in 1.2.7 where it chokes on > > animated gifs. It eats a lot of cpu and sits there blinking instead of > > animating. > > > > For example: http://www.o

Re: webkit 1.2.7

2011-03-04 Thread Dawe
On Mar 04, 2011 11:22, Marco Peereboom wrote: > It seems that an old webkit bug is back in 1.2.7 where it chokes on > animated gifs. It eats a lot of cpu and sits there blinking instead of > animating. > > For example: http://www.openbsd.org/art/banners/banner1.gif > > Am I the only one seeing t

webkit 1.2.7

2011-03-04 Thread Marco Peereboom
It seems that an old webkit bug is back in 1.2.7 where it chokes on animated gifs. It eats a lot of cpu and sits there blinking instead of animating. For example: http://www.openbsd.org/art/banners/banner1.gif Am I the only one seeing that?