Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com writes:
This may be more correct in that it cleans up the Damage. I think it's
less correct in that you break existing clients. FreeDamageExtWin()
deletes the Damage XID, but the spec mentions nothing about magically
garbage-collecting Damages just because their
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 15:35 +0200, Soeren Sandmann wrote:
Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com writes:
This may be more correct in that it cleans up the Damage. I think it's
less correct in that you break existing clients. FreeDamageExtWin()
deletes the Damage XID, but the spec mentions nothing
On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 11:03 -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:56:08 -0400, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
No code to create objects of this type ever existed.
I suspect that's a bug then -- the damage object is going to hang around
with a dead pointer to the window
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:44:54 -0400, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
Given that, I think we have to make it so damage actions against a
Damage that has lost its Drawable simply fizzle, and continue to leave
cleanup to the clients. Compiled, not tested:
Yeah, that sounds right to me.
On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 08:02 -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:44:54 -0400, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
Given that, I think we have to make it so damage actions against a
Damage that has lost its Drawable simply fizzle, and continue to leave
cleanup to the clients.
No code to create objects of this type ever existed.
Signed-off-by: Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com
---
damageext/damageext.c | 20
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/damageext/damageext.c b/damageext/damageext.c
index 754383d..88e64aa 100644
---
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:56:08 -0400, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
No code to create objects of this type ever existed.
I suspect that's a bug then -- the damage object is going to hang around
with a dead pointer to the window when it is destroyed.
Here's a completely untested patch that
