On 27 September 2013 23:34, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 27 September 2013 05:38, Neil Roberts wrote:
> > Pekka Paalanen writes:
> >> If not, is there not a possibility to break existing applications by
> >> blocking too early?
> >
> > Yes, you're right, the patch is nonsense because it wo
Hi,
On 27 September 2013 05:38, Neil Roberts wrote:
> Pekka Paalanen writes:
>> If not, is there not a possibility to break existing applications by
>> blocking too early?
>
> Yes, you're right, the patch is nonsense because it won't work when the
> application does wl_display_dispatch_pending b
Pekka Paalanen writes:
> If not, is there not a possibility to break existing applications by
> blocking too early?
Yes, you're right, the patch is nonsense because it won't work when the
application does wl_display_dispatch_pending because it might end up
with some events still in the queue but
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:59:13 +0200
Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> Hi,
>
> somewhat related to the issue of posting vs. queuing buffer.release event
> is a condition I have found that starves idle handlers in window.c.
>
> If the SwapBuffers implementation waits for buffer.release events to make
> sure t
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:56:49 +0100
Neil Roberts wrote:
> One idea to fix this might be to make dispatch_queue only ever
> dispatch the events that were current when the loop is started. That
> way if any further events are added while processing the current
> events it will give control back to t
One idea to fix this might be to make dispatch_queue only ever
dispatch the events that were current when the loop is started. That
way if any further events are added while processing the current
events it will give control back to the main loop before processing
them.
Here's a not-heavily-tested
