On 11/9/11 1:15 PM, matthieu.lochegn...@altissemiconductor.com wrote:
> I ran into it when using Xvnc from the RHEL6 package:
> tigervnc-server-1.0.90-0.10.20100115svn3945.el6.x86_64.
> I just did what you told: I started a Xvnc with depth 16, displayed on it
> a terminal (with a window manager), a
DRC wrote on 09/11/2011 19:22:37:
> I checked in the fix, but I'm still not able to figure out how to get
> the copy filter to engage. How are you doing that? None of the
> TightVNC family of VNC servers even generates that subencoding on the
> server end. It's not in TightVNC, even as far bac
I checked in the fix, but I'm still not able to figure out how to get
the copy filter to engage. How are you doing that? None of the
TightVNC family of VNC servers even generates that subencoding on the
server end. It's not in TightVNC, even as far back as 1.0.
On 11/9/11 3:23 AM, matthieu.loc
Pierre Ossman wrote on 09/11/2011 12:36:24:
> Looks good. But I'm thinking that going via ConnParams is
> probably overkill. Just put the configuration object at the top of
> CMsgReader.cxx, the same way it is for SMsgReader.cxx. A name change
> for both of the parameters might be in order though
Bug Tracker item #3435454, was opened at 2011-11-09 04:22
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by timtatanka
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=1126848&aid=3435454&group_id=254363
Please note that this message will contain a full c
On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:52:05 +0100
matthieu.lochegn...@altissemiconductor.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here is a new version for my "big cut & paste" patch, allowing to cut &
> paste more than 256k between the remote server and the client.
>
> Following Pierre's advice (one month ago), I tried to add a
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 12:22:49 +0100
matthieu.lochegn...@altissemiconductor.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> playing with valgrind around the Tight Decoder issue, it noticed those two
> wrong delete/free, fixed by the very simple attached patch.
>
Looks correct. Thank you for spotting these. I've committed t
Hi,
playing with valgrind around the Tight Decoder issue, it noticed those two
wrong delete/free, fixed by the very simple attached patch.
==6939== Mismatched free() / delete / delete []
==6939==at 0x4A04A84: operator delete(void*) (vg_replace_malloc.c:346)
==6939==by 0x4BFB91: rfb::Secu
DRC wrote on 09/11/2011 10:46:42:
> It probably needs to be w * sizeof(PIXEL_T), but I'd feel better if
> someone could test it, as apparently whatever I'm doing isn't invoking
> the copy filter (not sure how that filter is ever invoked, because I'm
> exercising all of the others by running vario
On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 03:53:14 -0600
DRC wrote:
> Can you explain what all of the "fence" stuff is doing?
It's explained on the wiki:
https://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/tigervnc/index.php?title=VNC_Latency_Considerations
The TL;DR; version is that fences are used for two things:
a) For the
Can you explain what all of the "fence" stuff is doing? Also, why is
there both a CU message (which uses the registered number of 150) and a
CU pseudo-encoding?
On 11/9/11 3:41 AM, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> Here is the promised patch to "fix" the latency issue in VNC. The basic
> idea is to let the
It probably needs to be w * sizeof(PIXEL_T), but I'd feel better if
someone could test it, as apparently whatever I'm doing isn't invoking
the copy filter (not sure how that filter is ever invoked, because I'm
exercising all of the others by running various programs in the Xvnc
session, moving wind
Here is the promised patch to "fix" the latency issue in VNC. The basic
idea is to let the server start sending updates without requests, but
doing so in a way that doesn't overload the client or the network.
WARNING! This patch uses protocol numbers that aren't properly
registered and should ther
Bug Tracker item #3336716, was opened at 2011-06-27 01:36
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by timtatanka
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=1126848&aid=3336716&group_id=254363
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of th
DRC wrote on 08/11/2011 19:37:33:
> Odd that valgrind didn't trap it. Perhaps the low-level datasets aren't
> ever exercising the Tight Copy filter.
Hi,
are you confident with the few lines for the Tight Copy filter, below
Pierre's fix?
Those were changed this way by commit 4763 :
15 matches
Mail list logo
