On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:08:47 +0100 (CET) Vincent Torri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
babbled:
I don't think that all the tests on _dpms_available are necessary. Your
program has to test it once, then do the necessary to not use the dpms
functions.
agreed - this is fairly useless. if its a conditinal
Vincent Torri wrote:
I don't think that all the tests on _dpms_available are necessary. Your
program has to test it once, then do the necessary to not use the dpms
functions.
Vincent
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Enlightenment CVS wrote:
Log Message:
Fix up ecore_x_dpms...formatting, removed
Vincent Torri wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Christopher Michael wrote:
Vincent Torri wrote:
I don't think that all the tests on _dpms_available are necessary. Your
program has to test it once, then do the necessary to not use the dpms
functions.
And if the calling program does not make
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Christopher Michael wrote:
Vincent Torri wrote:
I don't think that all the tests on _dpms_available are necessary. Your
program has to test it once, then do the necessary to not use the dpms
functions.
And if the calling program does not make those tests??? Segfault
I don't think that all the tests on _dpms_available are necessary. Your
program has to test it once, then do the necessary to not use the dpms
functions.
Vincent
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Enlightenment CVS wrote:
Log Message:
Fix up ecore_x_dpms...formatting, removed the static int's for dpms
Chidambar 'ilLogict' Zinnoury wrote:
Hello!
Le Sun, 4 Mar 2007 23:38:54 -0500 (EST), dans son message intitulé E
CVS: libs/ecore devilhorns, Enlightenment CVS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a eu le courage de nous raconter :
Enlightenment CVS committal
Author : devilhorns
Project : e17
Module
