snprintf does not allocate memory, so we can never get an out-of-memory error.
(Also, the error handler would free xwl_output after it was already registered
as an event listener.)
Signed-off-by: Dima Ryazanov
---
hw/xwayland/xwayland-output.c | 6 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 delet
The logic is pretty much copied from weston's clients/window.c.
Signed-off-by: Dima Ryazanov
---
hw/xwayland/xwayland.c | 25 -
hw/xwayland/xwayland.h | 8
2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/hw/xwayland/xwayland.c b/hw/xwayland/xwayla
This makes Xwayland correctly handle a monitor getting unplugged.
Signed-off-by: Dima Ryazanov
---
hw/xwayland/xwayland-output.c | 1 +
hw/xwayland/xwayland.c| 16
hw/xwayland/xwayland.h| 1 +
3 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
diff --git a/hw/xwayland/xwayland
Signed-off-by: Dima Ryazanov
---
hw/xwayland/xwayland-output.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/hw/xwayland/xwayland-output.c b/hw/xwayland/xwayland-output.c
index 155cbc1..1d75d0b 100644
--- a/hw/xwayland/xwayland-output.c
+++ b/hw/xwayland/xwayland-output.c
@@ -190,6 +190,7 @
On Tue, 12 May 2015 10:47:08 +0300
Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2015 16:07:26 +0100
> Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 11 May 2015 at 13:41, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > > Did you notice, that 'clientside-screenshot.png' ends up all black, if
> > > you do 'make check BACKEND=x1
On Mon, 11 May 2015 15:24:28 +0300
Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Wed, 6 May 2015 17:44:28 -0700
> Bryce Harrington wrote:
>
> > This also serves as a proof of concept of the screen capture
> > functionality and as a demo for snapshot-based rendering verification.
> > Implements screenshot saving
On Mon, 11 May 2015 16:07:26 +0100
Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11 May 2015 at 13:41, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > Did you notice, that 'clientside-screenshot.png' ends up all black, if
> > you do 'make check BACKEND=x11-backend.so'?
> > Wonder why it does that, you're not intending to do anyt
On Tue, 12 May 2015 09:08:41 +0200
Quentin Glidic wrote:
> On 2015-05-12 06:49, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:39:29PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> so the motivation for this patch is to make alloc failures just exit
> >> the process with EXIT_FAILURE th
On 2015-05-12 06:49, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:39:29PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> so the motivation for this patch is to make alloc failures just exit
>> the process with EXIT_FAILURE than calling abort()? Or is to stop
>> relying on assert()? Or to add the