On 04/19/2014 10:23 AM, Chad Versace wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 05:30:02PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote: >> On 04/18/2014 05:07 PM, Jamey Sharp wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Ian Romanick <i...@freedesktop.org> wrote: >>>> On 04/18/2014 03:37 PM, Sarah Sharp wrote: > >> If you use the unchecked >>> variant of the request, then the error is placed in the event queue; >>> if you're using Xlib, then by default it will be abort()ing your >>> client as soon as it pulls the error out of the event queue. >> >> Unless the client has an error handler, right? > > Even if the client does have an event handler, I don't believe it should > receive error events from Mesa's EGL internals. If the error originates > in EGL, then EGL should swallow it and bubble the error up as a standard > EGL error. > > If glXCupcake() places an X error into Xlib's event queue, no > application should be surprised. GLX is an Xlib API, afterall. But, if > eglCupcake() places an error into Xlib's event queue, that just feels > wrong. > > I'm in favor of s/_unchecked//g as Jamey suggests.
For EGL, I agree. As you point out, GLX is supposed to deliver its errors the way that nobody wants to receive them. :( _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
