# [texworks] Problem with line mangling

Paul A Norman paul.a.norman at gmail.com
Thu Jul 7 12:18:54 CEST 2011

HI,

There seem to have been some connected issues for a while possibly as
far back as 2009 depending on the true status/nature of this report.

Definitely pre February 2011

I wrote that up after it had been around for a little while, if that
helps to determine the Qt version number.

>>> long (1000+ lines) documents
>> I had it happening to me while recently testing for it, in a second
>> re-opened document (a letter) where \end{document} is at only line 192
>
> Are you talking about 0.4.3 (or a later version), or about the recent
> attempt in r862, or something else?

When testing r855 http://tug.org/pipermail/texworks/2011q3/004498.html

Stefan, your point about memory -- my short document was opened second
after a much much longer one.

Paul

On 7 July 2011 20:19, Jonathan Kew <jfkthame at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2011, at 09:12, Stefan Löffler wrote:
>>
>> I can't say, of course. My current hypothesis is that the problem
>> appears when Qt is trying to put text into a window that has not been
>> shown. Maybe it is even some kind of race condition that occurs only
>> when the window is shown while the text is not yet fully ready. But I
>> haven't been able to make heads or tails of the Qt internals yet.
>> Anyway, this is consistent with my tests (opening a file from the file
>> manager vs. opening it into an empty, unmodified document (in which case
>> the empty window is reused and thus shown already)). Plus, the race
>> condition would explain why this is fickle (different computer work
>> loads cause different processing times), and why it happens
>> predominantly in long documents (if that's the case).
>
> Given that we've had the line numbering for quite a while, but the reports of this problem seem fairly recent (or have I forgotten older ones?), I wonder if it could be related to changes, perhaps even a bug, in a relatively recent Qt release. Would it be feasible to try building with an older Qt that predates the problem reports, and see if this affects it?
>
> JK
>
>
>