> I don't think there's any inherent reason why 9vx must be unstable, > but it certainly has a couple bugs. I haven't had the time to track > them down and fix them, but I'm always happy to point in the > right direction if you can reproduce one. There have been a > few reports about it dying with cryptic errors from vx32. I'd like > to track those down but a reproducible test case is an absolute > requirement for the gritty low-level code at the bottom.
I wish I could isolate a repeatable case. For me, the times I see it are times like coming out a screensaver, or bringing the window up from under firefox. But it's not always related to redrawing the screen. I also sometimes see it when I do things like click on a mail messsage to view it. If there's anything consistent, it seems to be triggered by X activity rather than CPU activity, but that's a general impression without supporting data. The fact that I usually have upas/fs running means that network activity could well be connected. > The fact that 9vx works as well as it does has always made me > feel like I was cheating. It feels like it should be impossible > or at least much harder, and yet there it is, and most things run. Cheating or not, I've found it to be one of the most interesting and useful things I've come across in years. So thanks again for it. BLS
