Summary: | Undo is slower and consumes more CPU time after pressing undo (compared to 6.1) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | LibreOffice | Reporter: | Telesto <telesto> |
Component: | Writer | Assignee: | Not Assigned <libreoffice-bugs> |
Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | dgp-mail, ilmari.lauhakangas |
Priority: | medium | Keywords: | bibisected, bisected, perf, regression, wantBacktrace |
Version: | 6.2.0.0.alpha0+ | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Windows (All) | ||
See Also: |
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134189 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134652 |
||
Whiteboard: | |||
Crash report or crash signature: | Regression By: | ||
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 105948 |
Description
Telesto
2019-07-11 13:23:44 UTC
I confirm it with attached document Around 30 sec in Version: 6.4.0.0.alpha0+ (x64) Build ID: ae823e4633a76d13cebc6432b9e44b9b2862326b CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 10.0; UI render: GL; VCL: win; TinderBox: Win-x86_64@42, Branch:master, Time: 2019-06-26_23:06:07 Locale: de-DE (de_DE); UI-Language: en-US Calc: threaded and around 17 sec in Version: 5.4.7.2 (x64) Build-ID: c838ef25c16710f8838b1faec480ebba495259d0 CPU-Threads: 4; BS: Windows 6.19; UI-Render: GL; Gebietsschema: de-DE (de_DE); Calc: group Bibisected with win32-6.2 to https://git.libreoffice.org/core/+/86dfa34c6d83b70923d462fecad316dafd9a1fc4%5E!/ Upgrade to ICU 62.1 So "nobody's fault". I also checked and automatic spellchecking does not have an effect on/off. Why make 3 bugs out of 1? *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 116400 *** (In reply to Timur from comment #3) > Why make 3 bugs out of 1? > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 116400 *** Bug 116400 is about PDF-generation. So are you sure, it's the correct bug for a duplicate? (In reply to Dieter from comment #4) > (In reply to Timur from comment #3) > > Why make 3 bugs out of 1? > > > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 116400 *** > > Bug 116400 is about PDF-generation. So are you sure, it's the correct bug > for a duplicate? I think Timur being right here.. The difference is only how the problem is triggered, the underlying problem is the same. And the same file.. Same bibisect result.. |