On Wednesday, 9 September 2020 02:50:21 PDT Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > Well, the last time I've read some C-language specification many years
> > ago, the one thing that it really made clear was you can count on
> > everything is completely undefined.
>
> Ha, yeah.
C'mon, you know it isn't true.
On 09.09.20 17:44, Jan Bruns wrote:
Ok. I now have an even earlier point of missing knowledge than I
expected:
Why does the generated version of wayland-client-protocol.h reference
a server object called "wl_registry_interface"?
It is (contrary to what me thought, again mixing up the array a
Ok. I now have an even earlier point of missing knowledge than I expected:
Why does the generated version of wayland-client-protocol.h reference a
server object called "wl_registry_interface"?
It makes use of it in
extern const struct wl_interface wl_registry_interface;
static inline stru
On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 15:18:20 +0200
Jan Bruns wrote:
> I'll have to reevaluate the amount of required work now, and maybe I
> could start with simple tests. My guess is there's some parent-child
> process relationship required in order for the fd-passing mechanism to work?
No, no such requiremen
Hallo Pekka,
>> > Unfortunately there are many details that have not yet been written
>> > down in a specification document, which means you need to compare
with
>> > how the C bindings actually work, e.g. what does wayland-scanner do
>> > with the XML. The common catch is that a new_id arg
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 22:24:16 +0200
Jan Bruns wrote:
> Hallo Pekka,
>
> thanks for that great reply. It made a lot of things much more clear to
> me, but I must admit I'll probably simply give up.
>
> > yes, the application used headers are generated by a bindings-specific
> > tool from the XM
