On 10/04/2012 01:38 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Chad Versace writes:
>
>> I would have used the checked variant of the xcb call,
>> xcb_dri2_wait_xbc, and then returned 1 if an error had occured. Why
>> did you choose to use the unchecked variant?
>>
>> I'm aware that the old DRI2WaitSBC also always
Chad Versace writes:
> I would have used the checked variant of the xcb call,
> xcb_dri2_wait_xbc, and then returned 1 if an error had occured. Why
> did you choose to use the unchecked variant?
>
> I'm aware that the old DRI2WaitSBC also always blindly returned
> success, but is there justificat
I would have used the checked variant of the xcb call, xcb_dri2_wait_xbc, and
then returned 1 if an error had occured. Why did you choose to use the unchecked
variant?
I'm aware that the old DRI2WaitSBC also always blindly returned success, but is
there justification for the new code to also do th
---
src/glx/dri2.c | 41 -
src/glx/dri2.h |4
src/glx/dri2_glx.c | 43 ++-
3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/glx/dri2.c b/src/glx/dri2.c
index e17da6f..21b9c21 10
