On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Erik Enge wrote: > Do they tell us anything more?
Can I get you to rerun the test on box 2 with ./xscope -v2 ? That way, I can get the request number for each X request and see exactly which of the Render requests that fail. It doesn't look like the Render extension in the X server is where the bug is. The code looks very nice and simple (*). I think I have learnt to decipher most of an RenderAddGlyph request now -- except for *) I'm not sure how to calculate the length of a scanline in a glyph pixmap. In fact, I'm not even sure I know which Pixmap type is used for the images of the glyphs that are sent to the X server (it's the first time I try to decipher logs like these). If you don't want to play but just want TXWord to work on test4/box 2 like it does on test3/box 1, I don't blame you. Box 1 uses server-side fonts, which is the old style font technology in X and requires a running font server. Box 2 uses client-side fonts, which is newer, faster, leaner on the band width, and vastly fancier -- and doesn't even require a font server. Reconfigure box 2 to run with a font server instead of using client side fonts and it should all just work. -Peter PS: No, the logs haven't leaked any vital information - just TXWord, the two machine names and the filename of the document involved. _______________________________________________ XFree86 mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xfree86
