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





Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+ http://listengine.tuxfamily.org/