Re: [AD] X11 unresponsiveness

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives ]


Elias Pschernig wrote:

About 4.0.x compatibility,
I really don't know. I was under the impression only global symbols can
have an effect on ABI compatibility (but probably I'm wrong).

For .so's: if you make a symbol global, it doesn't automatically break the ABI. It only matters if the user makes a binary that references the symbol (directly). If you later take away that symbol, then the loader cannot resolve the symbol and the binary will not load. If the user decides to reference _xwin_private_handle_input, that's his own fault.

Yes. But the thing is, we have a very small patch, which actually
improves the signals version a bit. So I see no reason to not apply it.
Admitted, the improvement does not affect the general problem. But
actually *requiring* polling would be a big step. After all this years
where we got away without it. And then taking a possible improvement as
the time to introduce it. So, my view is, *encourage* using polling by
stating it in the docs, and adjusting all the examples to query the
driver if polling is required and do it in that case. But seeing how the
signals version apparently is the original X11 port, and has worked for
so long (at least for Vincent), I think we can keep it working without
polling for now (and add that patch to even improve it in some
admittedly hopefully rare cases).

Regardless of what the docs warn, I refuse to use the polling mechanisms (and if I could, I would deprecate all the relevant parts of the API). Whatever is done to make it work better without polling would be good for people like me. No, it's not just laziness...

Peter




Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+ http://listengine.tuxfamily.org/