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

[Vincent Torri]

On Fri, 11 May 2007, Jeremy A. Kolb wrote:

> On Fri, 11 May 2007, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> I say let's nip this in the bud.  There aren't that many consumers of XCB
> out there yet.

same for me.

Vincent