On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 04:18:13PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | You've tested this carefully to make *sure* it works?
>
> No :-)
>
> it is more "this should obviously work, else qt is braindead"... but
> we already know the answer to that I guess
The problem is that Qt _is_ braindead.
Joao Luis Meloni Assirati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars wrote:
>
>> | Index: lyxsocket.C
>> | - fd_(lyx::support::socktools::listen(addr, MAX_CLIENTS)),
>> | + fd_(lyx::support::socktools::listen(addr, 3)),
>
>> The use of MAX_CLIENTS here is not doing what the original auth
Lars wrote:
> | Index: lyxsocket.C
> | - fd_(lyx::support::socktools::listen(addr, MAX_CLIENTS)),
> | + fd_(lyx::support::socktools::listen(addr, 3)),
> The use of MAX_CLIENTS here is not doing what the original author
> thinks it does. The backlog parameter is just how many _o
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 04:18:13PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> it is more "this should obviously work, else qt is braindead"... but
> we already know the answer to that I guess
Indeed.
It's best to not touch Qt /at all/ unless you're fully prepared to test
every changed line...
> Is it
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 01:38:33PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
>
>> Here is an updated patch as well, gets rid fo the data_recieved
>> function in qt socket_callback.
>
| You've tested this carefully to make *sure* it works?
No :-)
it is more "this
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 01:38:33PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> Here is an updated patch as well, gets rid fo the data_recieved
> function in qt socket_callback.
You've tested this carefully to make *sure* it works?
connect() does NO compile time checking. In fact, I'd be very surprised
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> So no substantial objections to this patch then?
>
| Q (Angus): Do things continue to work after your patch is applied?
| A (Lars): Of course, or else I would not be suggesting applying this patch.
So you are saying that I
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> So no substantial objections to this patch then?
Q (Angus): Do things continue to work after your patch is applied?
A (Lars): Of course, or else I would not be suggesting applying this patch.
What objection could I make, therefore, given that a feature freeze is
meani
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> At least I find it a bit nicer. Comments/Objections?
>
| You go on to use 'MAX_CLIENTS' below, so don't cull it here:
>
| Index: lyxsocket.C
| - fd_(lyx::support::socktools::listen(addr, MAX_CLIENTS)),
| +
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> At least I find it a bit nicer. Comments/Objections?
You go on to use 'MAX_CLIENTS' below, so don't cull it here:
Index: lyxsocket.C
- fd_(lyx::support::socktools::listen(addr, MAX_CLIENTS)),
+ fd_(lyx::support::socktools::listen(addr, 3)),
In Engl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| At least I find it a bit nicer. Comments/Objections?
>
| I have not fixed up qt and gtk to use the same scheme yet.
This patch supposedly fixes up qt and gtk as well. (I am not even
compiled it...)
Index: lyxsocket.h
=
At least I find it a bit nicer. Comments/Objections?
I have not fixed up qt and gtk to use the same scheme yet.
(And I you wonder what I am doing: I am combing my way through the
code and looking close at stuff that went in when I was not paying
close attention. And trying to understand all the
12 matches
Mail list logo