On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 12:39:59 +
Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 4 December 2017 at 08:08, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 17:08:15 + Daniel Stone
> > wrote:
> >> On 10 July 2017 at 19:28, Emmanuel Gil Peyrot
> >> wrote:
> >> > The current behaviour when WAYLAND_DEBUG
Hi,
On 4 December 2017 at 08:08, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 17:08:15 + Daniel Stone wrote:
>> On 10 July 2017 at 19:28, Emmanuel Gil Peyrot
>> wrote:
>> > The current behaviour when WAYLAND_DEBUG is set is to print “array”,
>> > which is quite unhelpful.
>> >
>> > This patch
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 17:08:15 +
Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10 July 2017 at 19:28, Emmanuel Gil Peyrot
> wrote:
> > The current behaviour when WAYLAND_DEBUG is set is to print “array”,
> > which is quite unhelpful.
> >
> > This patch prints a list of the bytes present in the array. It d
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:08:15PM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10 July 2017 at 19:28, Emmanuel Gil Peyrot
> wrote:
> > The current behaviour when WAYLAND_DEBUG is set is to print “array”,
> > which is quite unhelpful.
> >
> > This patch prints a list of the bytes present in the array.
Hi,
On 10 July 2017 at 19:28, Emmanuel Gil Peyrot
wrote:
> The current behaviour when WAYLAND_DEBUG is set is to print “array”,
> which is quite unhelpful.
>
> This patch prints a list of the bytes present in the array. It doesn’t
> try to interpret it as uint32_t or anything, leaving that to th
The current behaviour when WAYLAND_DEBUG is set is to print “array”,
which is quite unhelpful.
This patch prints a list of the bytes present in the array. It doesn’t
try to interpret it as uint32_t or anything, leaving that to the reader
because this information isn’t present in the protocol desc
