Hi.
Today I looked more closely into the bad pixmap errors mentioned below.
It's definitely *not* an xplore bug, but missing stuff in IconG.c.
Specifically, I found that it is always assumed that the icon gadget
uses the small icon pixmap (that's why my minimal test program, and also
the container test program in the LessTif dist, worked fine; only the
small icon pixmaps were used there). So when the first icon gadget is
initialized by xplore, which only has a large icon pixmap, the call to
XGetGeometry in _XmCalcIconGDimensions fails. There are other places
where this problem arises; just search for IG_SmallIconPixmap in IconG.c.
This may be easy to fix. The container parent must be checked for its
entryViewType and the corresponding icon must be selected. If I have the
time, I'll try this out today. But from what I saw with a quick glance
at IconG.c, there might be other stuff missing as well. :(
Danny Backx wrote:
> Here are some remarks by the author of Xplore about stuff missing
> in LessTif.
>
> I also found that Xplore requires IconGadget which is still missing,
> that's probably the reason for the X Errors mentioned below.
>
> Danny
>
> Albert Graef wrote:
>
>> [snip] ...
>> So far, so good. But then the real trouble started. :( When invoking
>> xplore, I got the following X error message as soon as the program tries
>> to create the very first icon gadget (CreateLargeIconGadget in interface.c):
>>
>> X Error of failed request: BadDrawable (invalid Pixmap or Window parameter)
>> Major opcode of failed request: 14 (X_GetGeometry)
>> Resource id in failed request: 0x2
>> Serial number of failed request: 6401
>> Current serial number in output stream: 6401
>>
>> Of course, that indicates a bad pixmap. But I'm sure that these pixmaps
>> are initialized properly (that's done using the xpm lib, in icons.c). I
>> have no idea what's happening here, because the same code worked in all
>> other Motif 2.x versions that I tried. This *could* be a nasty bug in
>> xplore, but I haven't been able to isolate it yet. All my minimal test
>> programs ran just fine, so I don't believe that this is a LessTif bug.
--
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.musikwissenschaft.uni-mainz.de/~ag
