On 2018-02-22 01:36 PM, Markus Ongyerth wrote:
On 2018/2月/22 12:31, Derek Foreman wrote:
On 2018-02-22 10:48 AM, Markus Ongyerth wrote:
On 2018/2月/22 09:34, Derek Foreman wrote:
On 2018-02-22 08:58 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
Hi,
On 22 February 2018 at 14:14, Markus Ongyerth wrote:
It seems th
On 2018/2月/22 12:31, Derek Foreman wrote:
> On 2018-02-22 10:48 AM, Markus Ongyerth wrote:
> > On 2018/2月/22 09:34, Derek Foreman wrote:
> > > On 2018-02-22 08:58 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On 22 February 2018 at 14:14, Markus Ongyerth wrote:
> > > > > > It seems that thi
On 2018/2月/22 04:53, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi ongy,
>
> On 22 February 2018 at 16:03, Markus Ongyerth wrote:
> > On 2018/2月/22 02:58, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >> On 22 February 2018 at 14:14, Markus Ongyerth wrote:
> >> > The code was buggy the whole time. Just because it was never triggered,
> >>
On 2018-02-22 10:48 AM, Markus Ongyerth wrote:
On 2018/2月/22 09:34, Derek Foreman wrote:
On 2018-02-22 08:58 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
Hi,
On 22 February 2018 at 14:14, Markus Ongyerth wrote:
It seems that this patch makes that assumption invalid, and we would
need patches to weston, enlighten
Hi ongy,
On 22 February 2018 at 16:03, Markus Ongyerth wrote:
> On 2018/2月/22 02:58, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> On 22 February 2018 at 14:14, Markus Ongyerth wrote:
>> > The code was buggy the whole time. Just because it was never triggered,
>> > does
>> > not imply it's not a bug.
>> > free()ing t
On 2018/2月/22 09:34, Derek Foreman wrote:
> On 2018-02-22 08:58 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 22 February 2018 at 14:14, Markus Ongyerth wrote:
> > > > It seems that this patch makes that assumption invalid, and we would
> > > > need patches to weston, enlightenment, and mutter to pr
On 2018/2月/22 02:58, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 22 February 2018 at 14:14, Markus Ongyerth wrote:
> >> It seems that this patch makes that assumption invalid, and we would
> >> need patches to weston, enlightenment, and mutter to prevent a
> >> use-after-free during the signal emit? Now I'
On 2018-02-22 08:58 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
Hi,
On 22 February 2018 at 14:14, Markus Ongyerth wrote:
It seems that this patch makes that assumption invalid, and we would
need patches to weston, enlightenment, and mutter to prevent a
use-after-free during the signal emit? Now I'm seeing valgri
Hi,
On 22 February 2018 at 14:14, Markus Ongyerth wrote:
>> It seems that this patch makes that assumption invalid, and we would
>> need patches to weston, enlightenment, and mutter to prevent a
>> use-after-free during the signal emit? Now I'm seeing valgrind errors
>> on E and weston during bu
> Since a destroy signal inidicates the object is utterly dead, I don't think
> it's unreasonable for users to have assumed that they don't have to clean up
> their listener link. It's *never* going to fire again, so why should
> anything need to be removed?
This only implies that the signal
10 matches
Mail list logo
