On Mar 24, 10 19:19:15 +0100, Soeren Sandmann wrote: > > However, what happens if the code would have been compiled with -NDEBUG? > > Is the code path stable with empty regions? If it is, it can be argued > > that the patch is not necessary, but it could also be argued that the > > assert() shouldn't have been there in the first place. > > Who knows? Who knows if it's stable even *with* the patch? That's why > I don't want it in for 0.18.0.
Right. I just want to indicate that just disabling the assert()s typically is no "solution" for issues like this. > > That sounds more realistic. However, we don't have any other issues with > > assert()s, and there is a slim chance that this backport introduces > > additional regressions (asserts with side effects etc.). > > If it were *my* enterprise product, I'd definitely get rid of the > assertions, because they are known to take down the X server in > various situations. That's your call of course. If it was *my* enterprise product, I would've done quite a number of things differently ;-) I'm not entirely sure ATM, but you have a point. > As of 0.17.6 the assertions are not even enabled in unstable releases > because the only result were that they get triggered by the same old X > server issues, which just causes people to not test the pixman > releases. Which is problematic, because in this case the Xserver isn't fixed. No, I don't have a good solution to this dilemma. Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <mh...@suse.de> __ __ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ m...@mshopf.de Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ R & D www.mshopf.de _______________________________________________ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
