"J. Ali Harlow" wrote:
>
(snip)
> > If I run without the --sync argument, my understanding is that when the
> > error occurs, the current state of the stack may not represent the calls
> > that produced the error. Is this correct?
>
> Yes. With --sync, each X call will wait for a response back from the server
> before returning to the application. Without --sync, the error may not be
> noticed until a number of X requests have been sent after the one that actually
> caused the error.
So, given that I have never been able to produce the error when running
with --sync specified, my choices are:
1) Run with --sync and never hit the breakpoint, or
2) Run without the --sync and have no idea how many X requests back the
source of the error was when I do hit the breakpoint.
I had kind of suspected, and based on your informative posts am now
sure, that I'm doomed. I'll have to change the documentation and make
it a feature.
I was really hoping that there was something I misunderstood or was
overlooking.
Any guesses as to what could be occurring, that might cause different
behavior with '--sync' or not?
Maybe, creating something and trying to act on it too soon, before it is
'realized', but --sync causes the Xserver to allocate the resources
immediately?
I realize I'm grasping at straws...
Eric M. Monsler
_______________________________________________
gtk-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
