[ Please quote what you're referring to ]
On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 12:25 +0200, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
That would suggest creating a GC that completely bypasses exa.
I'm not sure that would really be a problem, but anyway it turns out
this doesn't work because GetScratchGC() may return a
That would suggest creating a GC that completely bypasses exa.
The proper solution seems like adding more indices or at least
detecting that the indices are being used.
I'll write a patch as soon as my system is in order again.
Maarten.
___
xorg
Maarten Maathuis wrote:
That would suggest creating a GC that completely bypasses exa.
The proper solution seems like adding more indices or at least
detecting that the indices are being used.
I'll write a patch as soon as my system is in order again.
Maarten.
Seems o.k. here.
On Sat, 2009-07-18 at 15:25 +0200, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
I'm trying to get my system in order again, but i'll certainly have a
look once i go trough the tons of updates and everything else that
needs doing.
So someone is using scratch GC and not finishing or preparing access
properly?
Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Sat, 2009-07-18 at 15:25 +0200, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
I'm trying to get my system in order again, but i'll certainly have a
look once i go trough the tons of updates and everything else that
needs doing.
So someone is using scratch GC and not finishing or
with index 1 while
it should have been (nil).
EXA bug: Calling FinishAccess on pixmap 0xaf06d008 with index 1 while
it should have been (nil).
EXA bug: Calling FinishAccess on pixmap 0xaf06d008 with index 1 while
it should have been (nil).
EXA bug: Calling FinishAccess on pixmap 0xaf06d008 with index 1
