Re: [PATCH] robustness for GdkEvent.xs

(i actually compsed this reply a month ago, but it got lost.)

On Nov 7, 2005, at 2:36 PM, Torsten Schoenfeld wrote:

On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 22:14 -0500, muppet wrote:

Now, #6 isn't really what i'm worried about --- we know that
exceptions in signals are bad, that's why we eval handlers.  #5 is
the problem.  We need to be robust against this sort of thing,
because it's always possible for new versions of gtk+ to add event
types, and we shouldn't crash because of it -- we should at least
limp along.

Ouch, I should have been more careful when I added support for
grab-broken.  Sorry about that.  I did test compilations/runs on all
stable gtk+'s, but our test suite just doesn't cover this kind of thing.

No worries; there wasn't a good explanation in the code of why you had to do it. I've fixed that. As for testing it... i don't think we can test this.

The patch looks good to me.

Okay, committed to HEAD, stable-1-10, and stable-1-08. We can decide later whether it's worth the hassle of releasing another 1.08x.

Meg: Brian! Chris picked his nose and keeps trying to touch me with his finger! Chris: What good is mining nose gold if I can't share it with the townspeople?
   -- Family Guy

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]