Subject: GSFR and modules

From: Bob Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 15:10:47 -0400

I'd like to request a brief moratorium on changes to the following:

		module.h
		module.c
		FvwmPager.h
		FvwmPager.c
		x_pager.c

while I try to debug possible problems with the new-style packet code.

	Several types of interaction between the Pager and FVWM cause FVWM to
crash, and I've just got to go through them one by one to see whether
they're caused by my changes (I'm certain that at least one of them is).

	The one I've tracked down so far (fix committed a few minutes ago) had
nothing to do with the new packet logic, but showed up whenever I used
the Pager to switch desks.

	If anyone has a problem with this, please let me know.

- Bob
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Bob Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 00:16:43 -0400

> while I try to debug possible problems with the new-style packet code.

	Ok, I've committed the changes to these.

	The new-style M_CONFIGURE_WINDOW packet has a temporary dummy word of
zero in the slot where the old flags were. The new gsfr flags are at the
end.

	The Pager has been converted to use the gsfr flags. I have temporarily
reverted all the "Silent" commands in x_pager.c to their, ah, noisy
equivalents. Something is amiss with the Silent logic: FVWM segfaults
everytime Pager sends it a Silent command.

	I'll probably work on the other half dozen non-gsfr-compliant modules
tomorrow evening.

- Bob

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 21:53:32 +0200

> 	I'll probably work on the other half dozen non-gsfr-compliant modules

One thing we should remember is the modules wee took out of the main
tarball. We may still want them to run.

Bye

Dominik ^_^

--
Dominik Vogt, [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 21:28:00 +0200

> 	I'll probably work on the other half dozen non-gsfr-compliant modules

Ah, Bob, is there a special reason why you don't put the ChangeLog entries
for the modules in the ChangeLog in the modules directory? I tried to figure
out from the ChangeLog why the 'silent' code in functions.c is commented
out and I find only your entry about disabling this in the pager. Did you
make that change in functions.c? Or maybe I did that while working on the
repeat command and forgot to undo it.

Bye

Dominik ^_^

---

From: Bob Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 23:32:01 -0400

Dominik Vogt wrote:
> for the modules in the ChangeLog in the modules directory? 

	Um, lack of sleep, probably.  :-(

	After I get some, I'll move the entries to the proper place.

> I tried to figure out from the ChangeLog why the 'silent' code in
> functions.c is commented out and I find only your entry about disabling
> this in the pager. Did you make that change in functions.c?

	No, that's the way I found it. I figured someone was probably in the
middle of working on this code, so I didn't try to tinker with it.
That's why I commented out the Silence of the Pager. (Took me quite a
while to figure out that this segfault wasn't something I'd caused with
my changes!)

- Bob

---

From: Bob Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 23:32:12 -0400

It occurred to me sometime this afternoon that we could reclaim a
couple of packet type mask bits and postpone the inevitable "GSFR on the
type bits" for a while.

	I left a dummy zero int in the old flags word position in the new
M_CONFIGURE_WINDOW/M_ADD_WINDOW packet. I intended to leave this in only
while things were in transition - i.e., some modules were converted and
others not. But what if we left it permanently, and used the SETOLDFLAGS
macro (and the DISABLE_MBC conditional) to set this word. We could then
drop the M_OLD_ADD_WINDOW and M_OLD_CONFIGURE_WINDOW packets, and
restore the regular packets to their old numbers.

	Any opinions?

- Bob

---

From: Tim Phipps <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:59:09 +0100

>         Any opinions?
Good idea, my only concern is that SETOLDFLAGS is quite expensive (32
bit twiddles, not in the same league a 400 XGrab's though) and I was
going to put in a hack that would skip it if the module didn't ask for
M_OLD_CONFIG_WIN.  If you merge the packets you won't be able to tell if
the module is going to use the old flags or the new flags and will have
to run SETOLDFLAGS always.

Cheers,
Tim.

---

From: Bob Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:11:12 -0400

> to run SETOLDFLAGS always.

	Good point. An alternative would be to add a run time option -
GlobalOpts or whatever - to use SETOLDFLAGS, which would be off by
default. I guess we should think about this one a bit more.

- Bob