<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Josh Triplett <<a href="mailto:josh@joshtriplett.org">josh@joshtriplett.org</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div class="im">On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 08:57:54PM +0000, Jon TURNEY wrote: > From: Ryan Pavlik <<a href="mailto:rpavlik@iastate.edu">rpavlik@iastate.edu</a>> > > The alternative is to use these in every WIN32 application which uses xcb. Doing > it this way should be safe, as, according to MSDN, "There must be a call to > WSACleanup for each successful call to WSAStartup. Only the final WSACleanup > function call performs the actual cleanup. The preceding calls simply decrement > an internal reference count" </div>[...] > Signed-off-by: Jon TURNEY <<a href="mailto:jon.turney@dronecode.org.uk">jon.turney@dronecode.org.uk</a>> Typically a patch needs a signoff by its author, not just the person submitting it. XCB doesn't particularly require signoffs, but if you want to follow that convention you should have the original author sign off. <div><div class="h5"> > --- a/src/xcb_conn.c > +++ b/src/xcb_conn.c > @@ -313,6 +313,10 @@ void xcb_disconnect(xcb_connection_t *c) > _xcb_xid_destroy(c); > > free(c); > + > +#ifdef _WIN32 > + WSACleanup(); > +#endif > } > > /* Private interface */ > diff --git a/src/xcb_util.c b/src/xcb_util.c > index 62c51e1..d64c904 100644 > --- a/src/xcb_util.c > +++ b/src/xcb_util.c > @@ -426,8 +426,13 @@ xcb_connection_t *xcb_connect_to_display_with_auth_info(const char *displayname, > if(!parsed) { > c = (xcb_connection_t *) &error_connection; > goto out; > - } else > + } else { > +#ifdef _WIN32 > + WSADATA wsaData; > + WSAStartup(MAKEWORD(2, 2), &wsaData); > +#endif > fd = _xcb_open(host, protocol, display); > + } </div></div>What happens if the application using XCB has already called WSAStartup, and passes a lower version number than 2.2? Will XCB's call to WSAStartup cause Winsock to start assuming 2.2 semantics instead of whatever older semantics the application requested? Or will Winsock just tell XCB to use the older version? In the latter case, can XCB live with that? - Josh Triplett </blockquote></div> I'm not sure, but 2.2 is available since a patch for Windows 95, so I'm pretty confident that it's a safe alternative.<div> </div><div>Jon, if you put these patches in some publicly-accessible repo I can go through and sign off on them easily. <div> </div>-- Ryan Pavlik HCI Graduate Student Virtual Reality Applications Center Iowa State University <a href="mailto:rpavlik@iastate.edu" target="_blank">rpavlik@iastate.edu</a> <a href="http://academic.cleardefinition.com" target="_blank">http://academic.cleardefinition.com</a> </div>