| 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: Chris <chris.kcat@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:19:11 -0700
- 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=MJ1Rh/IQZFJs7JYT3AZGKEPem+Jk3x23hOAJvFRoyWRTEj7NKF/gH5R+btqN71IwJgGNKnbzS4Riu7OjfJvg0NStUQGM3FI73BRKRa4d2pJfu7grJf5UA1LIMEa0+8VJFNNkP0Lx+wK9E5V9KEuQyzmQ5I539WYzFB7gi1y7hBE=
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:01:19 +0200, Evert Glebbeek <eglebbk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> What I gathered from a manpage I dug up on google is that you don't need to
> bother with XLock if you already use mutexes to prevent several threads
> from accesing X at the same time. In other words, your code should be good
> according to the manpage.
If that can be gauranteed behavior, then I don't have any more
objections, assuming the testing goes alright.
- Kitty Cat