| Re: [AD] proposal: remove XLOCK/XUNLOCK |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On Sun, 2006-04-23 at 23:31 +1000, Peter Wang wrote:
> On 2006-04-23, Elias Pschernig <elias@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The reason we do not use XInitThreads in the first place was basically
> > that the XFree86 implementation of XIM I was using when I wrote the XIM
> > patch was broken, and XLOCK/XUNLOCK already was in place for the signals
> > version: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=9884657
> >
> > But I just did a test now and defined XLOCK and XUNLOCK both away to
> > nothing and added XInitThreads() to _xwin_sysdrv_init - and all seems to
> > work.
>
> Are you sure? I thought all XInitThreads did was allow you to use
> XLockDisplay/XUnlockDisplay instead of some external locking mechanism.
>
> I think your proposal is too drastic. We can switch over to
> XInitThreads/XLockDisplay easily to support Mesa without dropping all
> XLOCK/XUNLOCK. Could even make it a configure option to should between
> pthreads locking and X locking, for those who haven't upgraded their X
> servers.
>
Yes, that would be the next option, but it means, we need to keep
XLOCK/XUNLOCK.
My impression was, XLockDisplay/XUnlockDisplay is only used if you
specifically want to do locking, but not needed. And my testing seems to
confirm that so far..
--
Elias Pschernig