Re: [gtk-vnc-devel] PATCH: Yet more endianness fixes

[Anthony Liguori <anthony codemonkey ws>]

Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 08:50:36AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>   
> > Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >     
> > > The problem I hit is that I ran a server with:
> > >
> > >   "vncserver -depth 32 -geometry 1024x1024"
> > >
> > > And the pixel format sent by the server is:
> > >
> > >  Pixel format BPP: 32,  Depth: 32, Byte order: 4321, True color: 1
> > >               Mask  red: 255, green: 255, blue: 255
> > >               Shift red:  24, green:  16, blue:   8
> > >
> > > So, note that 'depth is 32' here, even though the shifts/masks clearly
> > > fit in 3 pixels. And empirically the server sends me ZRLE updates with
> > > a CPIXEL size of 3, not 4.
> > >
> > > So when the spec says 
> > >
> > >    "depth is 24 or less"
> > >
> > > This is clearly not corresponding to the 'depth' value sent in the pixel 
> > > format. So basically we need to ignore explicitly declared  pixel format
> > > depth completely and just look at the pixel masks/shifts to calculate
> > > the true depth, and thus whether CPIXEL is 3 or 4 bytes.
> > >  
> > >       
> > Have you informed the realvnc folks of this?  Either the spec or realvnc 
> > should be fixed.  I don't like the idea of violating the spec to fix a 
> > bug with one server since we're then breaking another server that isn't 
> > violating the spec.
> >     
>
> I've looked at 3 different VNC server impls which support ZRLE now and
> they all work in the way I described / implemented, so I'm inclined to
> commit this
>   

Okay, go ahead.  Can you send a note to Tristan Richardson and see about 
getting the RFB spec updated to reflect this?

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Dan.
>