Re: [AD] X11 unresponsiveness

[Peter Wang <tjaden@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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