On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:57:51 +0200
Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:22:05 -0800
> Bryce Harrington wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 02:34:57PM +0100, Marek Chalupa wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > can confirm the segfault, tested it (will send the test I used for
> > > it as a
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:22:05 -0800
Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 02:34:57PM +0100, Marek Chalupa wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > can confirm the segfault, tested it (will send the test I used for
> > it as a follow-up). The only API change problem could be in
> > returning
> > NULL as
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 02:34:57PM +0100, Marek Chalupa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> can confirm the segfault, tested it (will send the test I used for
> it as a follow-up). The only API change problem could be in
> returning
> NULL as the interface - if the user does not check for it, he/she
> dereferences N
Hi,
can confirm the segfault, tested it (will send the test I used for it as
a follow-up). The only API change problem could be in returning
NULL as the interface - if the user does not check for it, he/she
dereferences NULL. But I don't think anybody (except us in tests) is
using wl_display_ge
If an error is received on a destroyed object, we'd get NULL passed
to display_handle_error() instead of a pointer to a valid wl_proxy.
The logging is changed to report [unknown interface] and [unknown id]
instead of the actual interface name and id.
The wl_display_get_protocol_error() documentat
