[Pixman] [PATCH] Fix server crash in pixman (to be discussed)
mhopf at suse.de
Wed Mar 24 11:24:09 PDT 2010
On Mar 24, 10 19:19:15 +0100, Soeren Sandmann wrote:
> > However, what happens if the code would have been compiled with -NDEBUG?
> > Is the code path stable with empty regions? If it is, it can be argued
> > that the patch is not necessary, but it could also be argued that the
> > assert() shouldn't have been there in the first place.
> Who knows? Who knows if it's stable even *with* the patch? That's why
> I don't want it in for 0.18.0.
Right. I just want to indicate that just disabling the assert()s
typically is no "solution" for issues like this.
> > That sounds more realistic. However, we don't have any other issues with
> > assert()s, and there is a slim chance that this backport introduces
> > additional regressions (asserts with side effects etc.).
> If it were *my* enterprise product, I'd definitely get rid of the
> assertions, because they are known to take down the X server in
> various situations. That's your call of course.
If it was *my* enterprise product, I would've done quite a number of
things differently ;-)
I'm not entirely sure ATM, but you have a point.
> As of 0.17.6 the assertions are not even enabled in unstable releases
> because the only result were that they get triggered by the same old X
> server issues, which just causes people to not test the pixman
Which is problematic, because in this case the Xserver isn't fixed.
No, I don't have a good solution to this dilemma.
Matthias Hopf <mhopf at suse.de> __ __ __
Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ mat at mshopf.de
Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ R & D www.mshopf.de
More information about the Pixman