| Re: [AD] proposal: remove XLOCK/XUNLOCK |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
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.
Peter