On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:47:30AM -0700, Ryan Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 05:23:47PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
[..]
any idea? something not 100% up-to-date?
Hrmm, weird. Can I have your config.log?
Try the diff below instead. The previous one depends
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:11:33PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:47:30AM -0700, Ryan Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 05:23:47PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
[..]
any idea? something not 100% up-to-date?
Hrmm, weird. Can I have your
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 05:23:47PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
[..]
any idea? something not 100% up-to-date?
Hrmm, weird. Can I have your config.log?
Try the diff below instead. The previous one depends on a GCC diff I have
in my tree. Sorry.
f.-
this newest diff
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:47:30AM -0700, Ryan Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 05:23:47PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
[..]
any idea? something not 100% up-to-date?
Hrmm, weird. Can I have your config.log?
Try the diff below instead. The previous one depends
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 02:45:37AM +, Jacob Meuser wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 08:24:38AM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:55:54AM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 06:31:26PM
[..]
any idea? something not 100% up-to-date?
Hrmm, weird. Can I have your config.log?
Try the diff below instead. The previous one depends on a GCC diff I have
in my tree. Sorry.
f.-
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 08:24:38AM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:55:54AM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 06:31:26PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:55:54AM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 06:31:26PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 06:36:45AM +, Jacob Meuser wrote:
I enabled using a separate thread for
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 06:31:26PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 06:36:45AM +, Jacob Meuser wrote:
I enabled using a separate thread for sounds by default. it's
possible that the audio block size would be large enough that X
events would be blocked for too
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 06:31:26PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 06:36:45AM +, Jacob Meuser wrote:
I enabled using a separate thread for sounds by default. it's
possible that the audio block size would be
I enabled using a separate thread for sounds by default. it's
possible that the audio block size would be large enough that X
events would be blocked for too long and timeout, returning an
error. but having the sound handled in a different thread this
does not happen.
imo, seems to overall work
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 06:36:45AM +, Jacob Meuser wrote:
I enabled using a separate thread for sounds by default. it's
possible that the audio block size would be large enough that X
events would be blocked for too long and timeout, returning an
error. but having the sound handled in a
12 matches
Mail list logo