Re: print_bindings patch

2009-02-21 Thread Thomas Adam
2009/2/21 Thomas Adam thomas.ada...@gmail.com:
 Hi --

 2009/2/21 Dominik Vogt dominik.v...@gmx.de:
 I've applied the patch after some modifications so that it's not
 necessary to copy window names etc.  But the code in charmap.c
 needs some proof reading.  I'm really not sur the memory
 management is correct.

 I was *just* this moment cleaning that up -- I will ditch my attempts
 and take a look.

Thanks for those improvements -- looks a little more sane now.  I've
gone and removed some of the calloc() stuff in print_bindings() which
ought to make more sense now and commited those.

Any problems, just shout -- I'm still a little cautious adding little
things like this to FVWM for fear of completely buggering it up,
although I suppose until someone shouts, I don't have to duck too low.
 :P

-- Thomas Adam



Re: print_bindings patch

2009-02-21 Thread Dominik Vogt
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 10:25:43PM +, Thomas Adam wrote:
 Hi --
 
 2009/2/21 Dominik Vogt dominik.v...@gmx.de:
  I've applied the patch after some modifications so that it's not
  necessary to copy window names etc.  But the code in charmap.c
  needs some proof reading.  I'm really not sur the memory
  management is correct.
 
 I was *just* this moment cleaning that up -- I will ditch my attempts
 and take a look.

I think there were still some bugs in charmap.c.  My latest commit
hopefully fixes these.

Ciao

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

-- 

Dominik Vogt



CVS domivogt: * Memory management fixes.

2009-02-21 Thread FVWM CVS
CVSROOT:/home/cvs/fvwm
Module name:fvwm
Changes by: domivogt09/02/21 18:55:00

Modified files:
.  : ChangeLog 
fvwm   : bindings.c 
libs   : charmap.c 

Log message:
* Memory management fixes.




Re: print_bindings patch

2009-02-21 Thread Thomas Adam
2009/2/22 Dominik Vogt dominik.v...@gmx.de:
 On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 10:25:43PM +, Thomas Adam wrote:
 Hi --

 2009/2/21 Dominik Vogt dominik.v...@gmx.de:
  I've applied the patch after some modifications so that it's not
  necessary to copy window names etc.  But the code in charmap.c
  needs some proof reading.  I'm really not sur the memory
  management is correct.

 I was *just* this moment cleaning that up -- I will ditch my attempts
 and take a look.

 I think there were still some bugs in charmap.c.  My latest commit
 hopefully fixes these.

Oh right, yes -- I'm glad you could see what I was getting at with the
bit twiddling stuff.  :)

-- Thomas Adam



Re: print_bindings patch

2009-02-21 Thread Thomas Adam
2009/2/22 Dominik Vogt dominik.v...@gmx.de:
 On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 12:24:14AM +, Thomas Adam wrote:
 2009/2/22 Thomas Adam thomas.ada...@gmail.com:
  2009/2/21 Thomas Adam thomas.ada...@gmail.com:
  Hi --
 
  2009/2/21 Dominik Vogt dominik.v...@gmx.de:
  I've applied the patch after some modifications so that it's not
  necessary to copy window names etc.  But the code in charmap.c
  needs some proof reading.  I'm really not sur the memory
  management is correct.
 
  I was *just* this moment cleaning that up -- I will ditch my attempts
  and take a look.
 
  Thanks for those improvements -- looks a little more sane now.  I've
  gone and removed some of the calloc() stuff in print_bindings() which
  ought to make more sense now and commited those.
 
  Any problems, just shout -- I'm still a little cautious adding little
  things like this to FVWM for fear of completely buggering it up,
  although I suppose until someone shouts, I don't have to duck too low.
   :P

 Oh -- and umm, without wanting to sound too pushy, can we have a
 2.5.27 unstable release soon?  I've read through the instructions in
 CVS on how to do this (assuming they're up to date) and whilst I could
 probably do it, I feel neither that confident,

 It's no big deal.  If you follow the instructions precisely, you
 shouldn't encounter any problems.

 nor that I have the
 right to enforce such a decision, but I do think it's something which
 is due, especially as more and more stuff is added in CVS now.  :)

 We should definitly try to get the print_bindings() stuff stable
 first.

Oh sure.  I ran it over my own bindings (as well as making a load up
-- see file attached).  Looks good, doesn't seem to crash anything.

Is this the sort of thing I ought to be adding in a test case for into
the build?  (It seems that side of things is rarely used these days
for new features.)

-- Thomas Adam


keyTest
Description: Binary data