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 89053 - gimp shows empty images
gimp shows empty images
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 85249
Product: GIMP
Classification: Other
Component: General
1.x
Other Linux
: Normal critical
: ---
Assigned To: GIMP Bugs
Daniel Egger
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2002-07-25 15:33 UTC by sbart
Modified: 2002-07-26 09:42 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description sbart 2002-07-25 15:33:37 UTC
gimp doesn't load any images, just show empty window. Size of the window is ok.

messags are:

using MMX: yes
gimp-1.3: tool-safe-mode init called
gimp-1.3: tool_plug_in_path:
/home/sbart/.gimp-1.3/tool-plug-ins:/usr/local/lib/gimp/1.3/tool-plug-ins
gimp-1.3: tool-safe-mode init done

(jpeg:16680): LibGimp-CRITICAL **: file gimppixelrgn.c: line 471
(gimp_pixel_rgn_set_rect): assertion `y >= 0 && y + height <=
pr->drawable->height' failed

(jpeg:16680): LibGimp-CRITICAL **: file gimppixelrgn.c: line 471
(gimp_pixel_rgn_set_rect): assertion `y >= 0 && y + height <=
pr->drawable->height' failed

(gimp-1.3:16667): Gimp-Core-CRITICAL **: file gimpcontainer.c: line 866
(gimp_container_get_child_by_index): assertion `index >= 0 && index <
container->num_children' failed

(png:16728): LibGimp-CRITICAL **: file gimppixelrgn.c: line 471
(gimp_pixel_rgn_set_rect): assertion `y >= 0 && y + height <=
pr->drawable->height' failed

(gimp-1.3:16667): Gimp-Core-CRITICAL **: file gimpcontainer.c: line 866
(gimp_container_get_child_by_index): assertion `index >= 0 && index <
container->num_children' failed
Comment 1 Sven Neumann 2002-07-25 16:33:45 UTC
This looks like a duplicate of bug #85249. What compiler are you using
and what optimization flags did you use?

It could also be a problem of a file loader plug-in. Does this happen
for all types of images or just one particular type?
Comment 2 sbart 2002-07-26 08:33:34 UTC
yes it was optimization problem... sorry for that. It seems like I
haven't noticed bug #85249.
Comment 3 Sven Neumann 2002-07-26 09:42:57 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 85249 ***