After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 332698 - Gnumeric 1.6.2 terminates unexpectedly
Gnumeric 1.6.2 terminates unexpectedly
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 92131
Product: Gnumeric
Classification: Applications
Component: Main System
1.6.x
Other All
: Normal critical
: ---
Assigned To: Jody Goldberg
Jody Goldberg
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2006-02-27 01:58 UTC by Bob W
Modified: 2006-02-27 02:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Description Bob W 2006-02-27 01:58:12 UTC 
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #332479 +++

Steps to reproduce:
1. Spreadsheet cell A2's value is set to 1 ,
   the cell below (A3) contains the formula =1+A2 ,
   then ontents of A3 are copied to cells A4 until A65534
2. Cell B2 is set to =A65534, contents of A3 are copied to B3..B65534
3. If Gnumeric has not crashed yet (depending on memory), range B2..B65534
   is copied to C2..C65534, then to D2 ..., and so on.
4. Both, Linux and Win32 versions fail after one ore more copy steps.


Stack trace:
No stack trace available, because the Gnumeric simply terminates without dialog.


Other information:
Another attempt was done by reducing the number of content-rows to about 16300. Gnumeric then terminates at a later stage, but at a similar spreadsheet size. Main memory size might not be an issue though, because the tests were performed with similar results on different hardware with 384MB and 1GB of RAM respectively.

This bug was cloned because the problem is not just related to the Win32 1.6.2 RC1 version as previously suspected. The problem was found to be identical on a Ubuntu Linux System running Gnumeric 1.6.2.
Comment 1 Morten Welinder 2006-02-27 02:47:57 UTC 
Ok, this is all OSs and caused by too deep recursion.


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 92131 ***