Ian Romanick writes:
> > I looked into the code, and I now understand what's going on. Alexis > made a good catch of a very subtle bug! The main problem that I had was > that it wasn't 100% clear at first glance how bufSize / buf / pc were > used. Some form of "- 8" should be applied to bufSize. I have attached > the patch that I plan to apply to the DRI tree. I suspect that it has > only cosmetic and / or commentary differences from your patch.
> > Some things have moved around in the DRI tree, so this patch probably > won't apply to the XFree86 tree.
We can wait until the DRI stuff is merged back again. The patch indeed is very similar to what has been proposed in #439.
I've also looked at the GLX code. At line 671 in glxext.c there is : maxSize = ctx->bufSize - sizeof(xGLXRenderLargeReq);
I believe you are correct.
It looks like __glXSendLargeCommand would allow the header and the payload to be split across two X protocol packets. Is that okay? It seems like it should be, but I don't want to make too many assumptions. :)
Wouldn't we have to add sz_xGLXRenderReq there again? I suppose if the size is to small it is saver as if it is too big.
Would you mind taking bug #439 and close it when the code is scheduled for merger with XFree86?
Done.
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
