On 23 February 2018 at 22:24, Derek Foreman wrote:
> Missing a closing bracket.
>
Eek, that's a embarasing.
Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov
We might want to tweak the existing infra to check that, bonus points
if we also check the headers actually
Pushed with Daniel's RB.
Thanks,
Derek
On 2018-02-23 04:39 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
Rb me (sorry for mangled phone client formatting ...)
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 10:25 pm Derek Foreman, > wrote:
Missing a closing bracket.
Missing a closing bracket.
Signed-off-by: Derek Foreman
---
src/scanner.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/scanner.c b/src/scanner.c
index c93070c..1737911 100644
--- a/src/scanner.c
+++ b/src/scanner.c
@@ -1748,7 +1748,7 @@
On Friday, 2018-02-23 17:31:53 +, Emil Velikov wrote:
> From: Emil Velikov
>
> Inspired by Heiko Becker and Eric's work in libdrm and Mesa
> respectively.
>
> Cc: Eric Engestrom
> Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov
Hi,
On 23 February 2018 at 17:31, Emil Velikov wrote:
> Inspired by Heiko Becker and Eric's work in libdrm and Mesa
> respectively.
Seems trivially correct and also worked here - pushed, thanks!
Cheers,
Daniel
___
From: Emil Velikov
Inspired by Heiko Becker and Eric's work in libdrm and Mesa
respectively.
Cc: Eric Engestrom
Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov
---
configure.ac | 1 +
Hi Pekka,
On 23 January 2018 at 14:20, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:26:36 + Daniel Stone wrote:
>> + if (sx1 < 0)
>> + sx1 = 0;
>> + if (sy1 < 0)
>> + sy1 = 0;
>> + if (sx2 >
On 2018/2月/23 08:53, Derek Foreman wrote:
> On 2018-02-23 07:44 AM, Markus Ongyerth wrote:
> > On 2018/2月/23 07:31, Derek Foreman wrote:
> > > On 2018-02-23 03:52 AM, w...@ongy.net wrote:
> > > > From: Markus Ongyerth
> > > >
> > > > This is related to the discussion earlier on
Hi,
Two patches that improve performance in my case.
First, supporting ARGB gbm-format for the output allows a much better
performance of the intelReadPixels function of the i965 driver of Mesa, which
is my case:
diff -rup a/libweston/compositor-rdp.c b/libweston/compositor-rdp.c
---
On 2018-02-23 07:44 AM, Markus Ongyerth wrote:
On 2018/2月/23 07:31, Derek Foreman wrote:
On 2018-02-23 03:52 AM, w...@ongy.net wrote:
From: Markus Ongyerth
This is related to the discussion earlier on the mailing list and
demonstrates a problem with current wl_priv_signal_emit
On 2018/2月/23 07:31, Derek Foreman wrote:
> On 2018-02-23 03:52 AM, w...@ongy.net wrote:
> > From: Markus Ongyerth
> >
> > This is related to the discussion earlier on the mailing list and
> > demonstrates a problem with current wl_priv_signal_emit and wl_listener
> > that free
On 2018-02-23 03:52 AM, w...@ongy.net wrote:
From: Markus Ongyerth
This is related to the discussion earlier on the mailing list and
demonstrates a problem with current wl_priv_signal_emit and wl_listener
that free themselves, but do not remove from the list.
This testcase
On 2018-02-23 02:15 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 16:02:49 -0600
Derek Foreman wrote:
In the past much code (weston, efl/enlightenment, mutter) has
freed structures containing wl_listeners from destroy handlers
without first removing the listener from
From: Markus Ongyerth
This is related to the discussion earlier on the mailing list and
demonstrates a problem with current wl_priv_signal_emit and wl_listener
that free themselves, but do not remove from the list.
This testcase asserts that the wl_list inside wl_listener is not
From: Markus Ongyerth
This is a v2 for the free-without-remove test, that actually fails the test and
does not require the use of valgrind to make observe the problem.
This is intended to fail at the moment, as the primary purpose is to show a
problem with current days
Hi, I have a v2 RFC _emit_final based on your idea.
It passes `make check` of libwayland and weston.
It also passes the remove-without-free test I sent in another mail.
---
(This patch isn't quite intended to be merged, but to get feedback on
the approach)
This adds a wl_priv_signal_emit_final
From: Markus Ongyerth
This is related to the discussion earlier on the mailing list and
demonstrates a problem with current wl_priv_signal_emit and wl_listener
that free themselves, but do not remove from the list.
The testcase itself passes. And I'm not sure if that can be
From: Markus Ongyerth
In [1] it was pointed out, that the proposed patch breaks code, that does not
remove their listener from a wl_signal list, but just free()s them.
From libwayland's perspective, this has never been different. People just got
lucky.
wl_priv_signal_emit will
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 16:02:49 -0600
Derek Foreman wrote:
> In the past much code (weston, efl/enlightenment, mutter) has
> freed structures containing wl_listeners from destroy handlers
> without first removing the listener from the signal. As the
> destroy notifier only
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 13:03:49 -0600
Derek Foreman wrote:
> On 2018-02-22 05:55 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:23:39 +
> > Emil Velikov wrote:
> >
> >> From: Emil Velikov
> >>
> >> First
20 matches
Mail list logo