https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=377901
--- Comment #12 from Kenneth Lakin <kennethla...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Martin Gräßlin from comment #11) > That is the documentation of Xlib, but KWin uses xcb. Mostly the two > libraries match, but sometimes there are differences. Fair enough, but the XCB guide [0] says: "For XCB, the documentation relies even more heavily on the protocol specifications. The generated API is an exact mapping to the X protocol; it translates the C call data into X protocol encoded packets as straightforwardly as possible." I would _expect_ that XCB wouldn't do something that runs contrary to the xlib documentation's definition of basic datatypes, such as timestamps. Maybe you've gotten bitten by just such an incompatibility, though? > Also a spec is one thing, the other is how the one and only > X-Server behaves. True, but I expect a few things to be true * xlib's description of how timestamp rollover is handled in the X server is how it's intended to be handled. * The x.org developers working on the parts of the server that handle timestamps aren't careless noobs, so xorg's handling of timestamp rollover is going to match the described behavior. > Long story short: I don't trust any x documentation. That's not an entirely unreasonable stance to have. But, if you can't easily test to check whether the documented behavior matches the implemented behavior, isn't it more pragmatic to code as if the documented behavior is true, and rely on user bug reports (supported by "The implemented behavior didn't match the docs!" prints in the code, where practical) to let you know when the implementation doesn't match the docs? :) [0] https://www.x.org/wiki/guide/xlib-and-xcb/#index5h2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
