[<<] [<] Page 1 of 1 [>] [>>] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
"stub.c" question (nxlib-0.44)
From: "Paul Bartholomew" ####@####.#### Date: 28 Jun 2005 01:47:44 +0100 Message-Id: <BAY108-F28CD7208FB2B40B46178E2EFE10@phx.gbl> Hello - I've got microwindows-0.90/nano-X running under X-Windows. I'm building under Fedora Core 4 (includes gcc 4.0, which has introduced a few problems (which I've 'hacked' to resolve)). The microwindows/nano-X demos seem to run OK. I'm trying to get fltk-1.1.6 running using nxlib-0.44. Running their "test/hello" or "test/clock" apps (after starting the "nano-X" server), I get core dumps. I've found that "XAllocSizeHints()" and "XAllocWMHints()" are returning NULL pointers (which the code in "Fl_x.cxx" doesn't like). I see that these are in nxlib's "stubs.c" (returning "0" - I assume this means that they are 'not implemented'??). I modified Fl_x.cxx to use "calloc()" instead of "XAllocSize/WMHints()", and it seems to work. I assume I could just modify 'stubs.c' to do the same. But, is this the 'correct' way to do things in the "X" client/server model? On a 'real' X system, would the allocation occur on the server-side (meaning: I shouldn't do an allocation on the client-side to workaround the problem)? If that's the case on a 'real' X setup, is that also true for the nano-X client/server model? Or, is it OK to just use 'calloc()' for this type of allocation? Thanks in advance, - Paul B. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[<<] [<] Page 1 of 1 [>] [>>] |