> It works for me, though I'm finding the double-negative wording confusing: > #ifndef LP_1030891_NOT_FIXED
Yeah that does suck, although this is weirder
#ifdef LP_1030891_FIXED ... #endif
where LP_1030891_FIXED is not defined anywhere (and necessarily, if it were fixed, the ifdefs would just be removed)
> > On that note, should this be ifndef? > 51 +#ifdef LP_1030891_NOT_FIXED
If you are talking about
50 + { 51 +#ifdef LP_1030891_NOT_FIXED 52 + ServerLock lock (serverGrabInterface); 53 +#endif 54 if (!checkPixmapValidity (x11Pixmap))
That is correct. We want to ensure that there's a server grab for unmanaged pixmaps, to avoid regressing bug 927168 . This happens quite rarely anyways (only on decor pixmaps)
« Back to merge proposal
> It works for me, though I'm finding the double-negative wording confusing: NOT_FIXED
> #ifndef LP_1030891_
Yeah that does suck, although this is weirder
#ifdef LP_1030891_FIXED
...
#endif
where LP_1030891_FIXED is not defined anywhere (and necessarily, if it were fixed, the ifdefs would just be removed)
> NOT_FIXED
> On that note, should this be ifndef?
> 51 +#ifdef LP_1030891_
If you are talking about
50 + { NOT_FIXED rface); lidity (x11Pixmap))
51 +#ifdef LP_1030891_
52 + ServerLock lock (serverGrabInte
53 +#endif
54 if (!checkPixmapVa
That is correct. We want to ensure that there's a server grab for unmanaged pixmaps, to avoid regressing bug 927168 . This happens quite rarely anyways (only on decor pixmaps)