| Re: [AD] race condition in X11 |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On Monday 28 November 2005 15:02, Vincent Penecherc'h wrote:
> Anyway, looking at the code for scare_mouse, it doesn't check
> if the screen is locked, though there is a BMP_ID_LOCKED flag
> that could be checked.
I think it should be checked at a `deeper' level, but I'm not sure I have a
clear picture of the problem.
Anyway, you should let X draw the cursor for you and not bother with Allegro's
soft cursor :P
> Is there a reason for this, or would
> it be alright if I added an assert there ?
Maybe. I'd have to think a bit about it to make up my mind though. ;)
> Also, another strange thing is that calling acquire twice is
> apparently OK (eg, no assert), the second call doesn't seem
> to do anything (from memory).
That's the documented behavior.
> It doesn't track the number of
> calls, though, so it will screw up the nesting.
This is a bug though.
> I think it
> ought to assert there (and unacquire (IIRC) should assert the
> BITMAP is locked, if it doesn't already.
No. Nested locks are allowed, but only the last call to release_bitmap()
should release it.
> Would it break
> the binary API to add a flags member to the BITMAP array ?
> (eg, bad malloc sizes, etc)
Yes, because it changes the size of the BITMAP struct.
Evert