On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 09:11:40AM +0100, Dominik Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > http://data.plan9.de/fvwm-2.5-argb-visual.patch
>
> Small to medium sized patches can be sent directly to the mailing
> list. That makes life for us much easier:
Will do next time.
> > The other small uncleanlieness is the hardwired -1 for the pixel values,
> > but that should hardly create any problems (all bits set boil down to
> > opaque white - its not visible anyways, and is guarenteed to exist in such
> > visuals).
>
> But doesn't this change break normal (non-ARGS) 32 bit TrueColor
> visuals?
Sure, but is there reason to believe such weird beasts exist?
One could improve the test by checking wether all masks or'ed together are
less than 32 bit.
However, I just had a look at xlib, and it detects argb visuals simply by
comparing the depth against 32 (without any further tests, even):
if (dp->depth == 32 && getenv ("XLIB_SKIP_ARGB_VISUALS"))
So this seems to be the expected way to detect those visuals at the
moment.
--
The choice of a
-----==- _GNU_
----==-- _ generation Marc Lehmann
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / http://schmorp.de/
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE
