| Re: [AD] XIM patch for Allegro 4.1.x |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
- To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [AD] XIM patch for Allegro 4.1.x
- From: Evert Glebbeek <evertg@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:44:00 +0200
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=JxtIDtdKeI72+M8ITJQTjvMKqK7RpipZNEpwUHmPTikst/2o/FlDFpNYZSmxDVrAPfMV3qp7EMTQ27WTH9Kj/8gavyK5hcK3VKyJ4C3tzWQ7Ii7Xle72AyNor78UoFFonfR2LQE+f4onTL4TCJtVSWOxPz3iZx8viid94unbCjU=
> I think something like this really needs to be investigated deeply..
> to find out what the expected behavior of XLock and XUnlock are, how
> they deal on different systems (multi-cpu, non-x86, etc), and so on.
It seems to work flawlessly on my dual-CPU workstation, with software
mouse. I ran several tests in the test program, none of them locked up or
crashed or caused other undesirable behavior. So it does seem harmless
enough.
Any other tests I should run?
> We wouldn't want to do this now and all of a sudden notice problems in
> 4.2 and not know why.
That's very true though.
Evert