On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 07:18:06 -0600
Derek Foreman wrote:
> On 2018-02-23 02:15 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 16:02:49 -0600
> > Derek Foreman wrote:
> >
> >> In the past much code (weston, efl/enlightenment, mutter) has
> >> freed structures containing wl_listeners from des
On 2018-02-23 02:15 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 16:02:49 -0600
Derek Foreman wrote:
In the past much code (weston, efl/enlightenment, mutter) has
freed structures containing wl_listeners from destroy handlers
without first removing the listener from the signal. As the
destro
Hi, I have a v2 RFC _emit_final based on your idea.
It passes `make check` of libwayland and weston.
It also passes the remove-without-free test I sent in another mail.
---
(This patch isn't quite intended to be merged, but to get feedback on
the approach)
This adds a wl_priv_signal_emit_final a
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 16:02:49 -0600
Derek Foreman wrote:
> In the past much code (weston, efl/enlightenment, mutter) has
> freed structures containing wl_listeners from destroy handlers
> without first removing the listener from the signal. As the
> destroy notifier only fires once, this has larg
In the past much code (weston, efl/enlightenment, mutter) has
freed structures containing wl_listeners from destroy handlers
without first removing the listener from the signal. As the
destroy notifier only fires once, this has largely gone
unnoticed until recently.
Other code does not (Qt, wlroo
