[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
- To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [AD] XInitThreads
- From: Milan Mimica <milan.mimica@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 16:27:47 +0200
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=RMpCKGUcT4Fr7aMASXtin7jVnev0jNoPQCNgBW2WW4meF1fK1sut6Q4eKEckRdL4Iv7L33uVjDAC4Z98cBGOWW6QM6NTlRvw0ldliDeIfFFXuIVBMSfFymJBjDKf1k+GJm8VGEaysXCGbCpMpZX47oMzRqmVrdYghEy/e+Sw7QM=
Elias Pschernig wrote:
If it seems to be a better idea, I can also make a patch to use
XLockDisplay in XLOCK. And it could still be configurable at compile
time via a configure parameter.
This would require a bit of tunning. You cannot lock the display you
haven't opened yet, therefore you cannot lock whole
_xwin_private_open_display(). The same applies for unlocking a display
closed with XCloseDisplay() in _xwin_close_display().
Are recursive calls to XLOCK/XUNLOCK valid? As far I can tell
_unix_create_mutex creates a non-recursive mutex. Which reminds me there
is one patch that should be applied to AGL if we don't change this.
XLockDisplay/XUnlockDisplay are recursive.
I don't think we should change the locking system, but I'm not sure if
we should lock X11 calls in AGL at all, since signaled version is not
supported.
--
Milan Mimica
http://sparklet.sf.net