| Re: [AD] XOR drawing under X11 (and what is _xwin_in_gfx_call) |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
- To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [AD] XOR drawing under X11 (and what is _xwin_in_gfx_call)
- From: Chris <chris.kcat@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 04:08:09 -0800
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:return-path:message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:x-enigmail-supports:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=QjE3yKOfnZdtJyb79ekALKOUE02teetGU76uC2ZWUtxGAvqiy5U+uZGcyXqomLCn6tGHLrdGk4oaiN0c3rZKITPfZjLyY938r4+qnV6hYukHMSIpFVy35iTfy+em3uW2GZ/hbY7p/95k6jTClmVkakVIMURHZmoIQ0n4aVT96ws=
Elias Pschernig wrote:
No. Since you overwrote it with a non-blocking version, just one line
before the switch. Or even if we always require locking in any vtable
functions, it still would block now in the wrong method, the one which
does no updating.
Hmmm, I missed that. I also just realized that by replacing the vtable,
the acquire/release_bitmap functions can become all messed up, and that
would be a Very Bad Thing(tm).
Hm, good point. I don't know much about this, but I guess e.g. the
DirectX driver behaves like that? If it does, then yes, it would be bad
- guess need to do some more thinking for 4.3.x.
I think DGA-2 would also, if it has any accelerated functions.
So, looks like there's no alternative to always locking, and keeping
in_gfx_call, for now, right?
Right.