[Xcb] [PATCH] Making XCB less of a memory hog

[Tilman Sauerbeck]

Barton C Massey [2007-05-11 13:28]:
> In message <20070511191529.GA7797 at code-monkey.de> you wrote:
> > Barton C Massey [2007-05-11 11:55]:
> > > In message <20070511151628.GA1818 at code-monkey.de> you wrote:
> > > > OTOH, this unfortunately breaks the API.
> > >
> > > My reading-XML-at-the-terminal ability is limited.  What
> > > does the proposed API look like?  Or did you mean an ABI
> > > break, about which we probably care not at all?
> > [...] 
> > So that ext pointer is moved from the struct to the function call.
> > This would break the API and the ABI.
> > 
> > That's for the patch I submitted, but I also outlined a way to avoid the
> > break, by adding xcb_send_request2(), that takes the new arguments.
> > 
> > Let me know if I need to explain better.
> 
> No, that gets it: thanks!  So the only API/ABI that breaks
> is that between XCB extensions (and Xlib, as you point out)
> and the XCB core.
> 
> In general I'm loathe to work around performance bugs in the
> current implementation of shared libraries by distorting
> XCB.  However, this seems like a relatively minor change;

Yeah, my timing really sucks. I wish I had noticed this behaviour when
you were in the RC phase :(

Regards,
Tilman

-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xcb/attachments/20070511/7b6c632c/attachment.pgp