On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 01:58:13PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
The idea here is to track the different touches given by the device.
Currently, the driver continue to send the trackingID as the XInput
implementation in the server does not contains the masks of the
valuators.
Note that
On 2010-04-08 08:14, Dan Nicholson wrote:
Huh, I hadn't noticed that. I think we should demand that you have the
version with the .pc file once there's a release. For the very few
people who are going to attempt to build the sgml documentation, I
think they can be bothered to grab a newer
Please use a different name for the macro. On *BSD ALIGN() is a macro
that gets pulled in as part of sys/param.h and will conflict with
your new macro.
___
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info:
Hi, all
This is AMD guy. We need some help from the community.
Right now, we are debugging the geode driver. In three BTS,
the big issue is the no icon bug on the desktop.
I have written some simple Xlib programs trying to
reproduce this issue because it
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 11:14:18PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:38:12 +0200, Rémi Cardona r...@gentoo.org wrote:
We (in gentoo) have spent a lot of time trying to figure out which
protos each app really needs. Now that the split has been done for so
long, I just
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 07:03:56AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Tiago Vignatti tiago.vigna...@nokia.com
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 08:14:18AM +0200, ext Keith Packard wrote:
In my ideal world, a user interested in trying out the latest driver
bits for
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 12:14:50PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
You'd have to change all the libraries and apps that depend on them.
That's fine for xorg packages, but it's a little tougher to know about
libraries out in the wild. At the very least, it would require that
you reinstall all
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 09:45:01 +0200
Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be wrote:
But don't the protocol headers each have packages depending on them
separately, so that an update of the amalgamut triggers an update of
many of the packages above the protocol header amalgamut?
is this a valid concern?
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X)
yselkow...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
On 2010-04-08 08:14, Dan Nicholson wrote:
Huh, I hadn't noticed that. I think we should demand that you have the
version with the .pc file once there's a release. For the very few
people who are going
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 08:46:32PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Dirk Wallenstein wrote:
Move all of kbproto and the corresponding manuals in libX11 to the
(next-1) mask specification theme. This makes editing the flags less
error-prone and it did already let me find some errors. This also
On 07/04/2010 18:32, Jamey Sharp wrote:
I'm confused about whether multiple declarations of the same global
are allowed. In this case, ddxHooks is declared in both
xwin/InitOutput.c and dispatch.c. But as far as I can tell, this can't
hurt any DDX except Xwin, and I assume you've tested that it
High resolution devices was generating integer overflow.
For instance the wacom Cintiq 21UX has an axis value up to
87000. Thus the term (dSx * (Cx - Rxlow)) is greater than
MAX_INT32.
Using 64bits integer avoids such problem.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Ribet ri...@cena.fr
Signed-off-by: Benjamin
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 06:11 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X)
yselkow...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
On 2010-04-08 08:14, Dan Nicholson wrote:
Huh, I hadn't noticed that. I think we should demand that you have the
version with the .pc file
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 11:23:21PM +0200, ext Keith Packard wrote:
Yeah, for things which are created after the ScreenRec is allocated, it
makes sense to just allocate them right in the ScreenRec.
For things which are in the xfree86 DDX and are allocated before the
ScreenRec, those can be
During rotation the screen SourceValidate ptr is set to NULL
(see hw/xfree86/modes/xf86Rotate.c xf86RotateRedisplay) to avoid
segfaulting in exa unaccelerated path check for a valid SourceValidate
ptr.
Signed-off-by: Jerome Glisse jgli...@redhat.com
---
exa/exa_unaccel.c |4 +++-
1 files
So what is the general recommendation at this point for how to ship libX11?
I'm still shipping a build --without-xcb mainly because we wanted to play it
safe during xcb's infancy. Has anyone did performance comparisons recently?
Are there any bugs or support issues with the switch that I
The main motivation here is to have the resource system clean up the
DRI2 drawable automatically so glx doesn't have to. Right now, the
glx drawable resource must be destroyed before the X drawable, so that
calling DRI2DestroyDrawable doesn't crash. By making the DRI2
drawable a resource, GLX
Now that glx doesn't call DRI2DestroyDrawable anymore, we don't need to
force a specific resource destruction order in the DestroyWindow hook.
Signed-off-by: Kristian Høgsberg k...@bitplanet.net
---
glx/glxscreens.c | 28
glx/glxscreens.h |1 -
2 files changed,
The generated config.h does not need to include xorg-server.h
for the content it provides.
Add #include xorg-server.h in .[hc] files as needed.
Signed-off-by: Gaetan Nadon mems...@videotron.ca
---
configure.ac |2 --
src/acecad.c |3 +++
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Jeremy Huddleston
jerem...@freedesktop.org wrote:
So what is the general recommendation at this point for how to ship
libX11? I'm still shipping a build --without-xcb mainly because we
wanted to play it safe during xcb's infancy.
I'm curious to hear from
Jamey Sharp wrote:
I'm curious to hear from packagers myself. I think most packagers are
building --with-xcb at this point, on Linux, BSD, and Solaris? I don't
know though.
Solaris 10 and older are still X11R6 libX11, so no xcb in them.
For OpenSolaris and the next Solaris release, we're
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 11:36:55AM -0700, Jamey Sharp wrote:
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Jeremy Huddleston
jerem...@freedesktop.org wrote:
So what is the general recommendation at this point for how to ship
libX11? I'm still shipping a build --without-xcb mainly because we
wanted to
On 2010-04-09 13:36, Jamey Sharp wrote:
I'm curious to hear from packagers myself. I think most packagers are
building --with-xcb at this point, on Linux, BSD, and Solaris? I don't
know though.
Cygwin has shipped libX11 --with-xcb since X11R7.4.
Yaakov
Cygwin/X
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, Jamey Sharp wrote:
I may not have a complete picture of support issues, though. Ubuntu
apparently fails to send XCB-related bug reports upstream, for example,
and naturally I can't tell if other distros are failing the same way.
Is this upstream enough?
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Timo Aaltonen timo.aalto...@aalto.fi wrote:
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, Jamey Sharp wrote:
I may not have a complete picture of support issues, though. Ubuntu
apparently fails to send XCB-related bug reports upstream, for example,
and naturally I can't tell if other
25 matches
Mail list logo
