https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=359467
David Edmundson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||k...@davidedmundson.co.uk
Status|
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=359467
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Lübking ---
No idea whether that's still reelvant, this "bug" discusses working around a
threading issue in Qt's X11 code that existed in 2016
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=359467
--- Comment #5 from Justin Zobel ---
Thank you for the bug report.
As this report hasn't seen any changes in 5 years or more, we ask if you can
please confirm that the issue still persists.
If this bug is no longer persisting or relevant please change
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=359467
--- Comment #4 from Martin Gräßlin ---
(In reply to Thomas Lübking from comment #3)
> They might argue that our "correct usage" is a native event filter ;-)
>
> Maybe we'll have to -steal- "borrow" QXcbConnection::getTimestamp()
No need to steal, I wr
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=359467
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Lübking ---
They might argue that our "correct usage" is a native event filter ;-)
Maybe we'll have to -steal- "borrow" QXcbConnection::getTimestamp()
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=359467
--- Comment #2 from Martin Gräßlin ---
(In reply to Thomas Lübking from comment #0)
> => Maybe ask Qt to use a recursive mutex in 5.6?
Sounds like the best idea. The API Qt offers shouldn't dead-lock in a correct
usage.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=359467
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Lübking ---
Created attachment 97250
--> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=97250&action=edit
Backtrace by Jürgen Scholz, originating from unrelated bug #358245
The backtrace that made me aware of the problem, it's not
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=359467
Thomas Lübking changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.scholz...@gmail.com
--
You are receiv
