Subject: netscape and 24 bit visual?

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 01:50:57 +0200

When I start X with a 24 bit true colour visual
and then run netscape (with or without -install)
the internal icons, menus, ... get only two colours:
a black foregroung and the default background
(netscape 4.05). I assume this is nothing fvwm
could cause (?) Same with 2.2 and 2.3.x.

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: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 04 Apr 1999 13:03:44 -0500

>>>>> "DV" == Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]> writes:

DV> When I start X with a 24 bit true colour visual and then run netscape
DV> (with or without -install) the internal icons, menus, ... get only two
DV> colours:

Netscape bug, happens with any WM I've tried.  I'm not sure if 4.5 is
better.  I think in essence they neglected to include 24-bit icons.

 - J<

---

From: Tomas Ogren <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 14:06:26 +0200

> better.  I think in essence they neglected to include 24-bit icons.

Works just fine (no visual bugs) on 24bpp Solaris, AIX and IRIX
X-servers (running linux netscape 4.51, every other version I've tried
works as well). From what I've heard, it's either an XF86 or
XF86-netscape interaction issue.

/Tomas
-- 
Tomas Ögren, [email-masked], http://www.ing.umu.se/~stric/
|- Student of Computer Science at the University of Umeå
`- Sysadmin at {cs,ing,acc}.umu.se
--
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: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 12:07:40 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, Tomas Ogren wrote:

> X-servers ...

Hey!  You have an AIX machine??  Have you compiled a recent (after 1
April)  version of the cvs sources on it? 

The reason I'm asking is: I had to slightly change the alloca magic
incantation in acconfig.h.  I ended up moving down to the bottom -- so it
appears near the end of config.h.  However, there was a comment in the
magic code claiming "AIX requires this to be the first thing in the file." 
Since that is no longer the case, it would be nice if you could verify
that the code works --- using vendor compiler if possible.

---

From: Johan Bengtsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 18:19:51 +0200 (CEST)

> XF86-netscape interaction issue.

The problem is with 24 bit visuals only supportion 24 bpp pixmaps.

	/ Johan

---

From: Tomas Ogren <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 18:24:00 +0200

> April)  version of the cvs sources on it? 

Could try... I'll get back to you..

> that the code works --- using vendor compiler if possible. 

Yeah.. gcc isn't so.. great on the RS-boxes.. produces much slower
code...

/Tomas

---

From: Jay Kuri <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 12:38:36 -0400 (EDT)

> The problem is with 24 bit visuals only supportion 24 bpp pixmaps.

	This is indeed something to do with 24bit color and netscape on
the XF86 server.  This is why it doesn't show up under solaris and
whatnot.  I ran into this almost a year ago.

It is actually due to netscape doing some things it shouldn't.  If you do
a dejanews search for:

"x11 AND bpp AND 24 AND pixmap" 

Author: Jamie Zawinski <[email-masked]>
Date:   1998/04/25
Forum:  netscape.public.mozilla.general
Re:     [xfe] TrueColor visual problems. 

This is a post about the fix in mozilla.

Jay

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 05 Apr 1999 13:10:45 -0400

%% Steve Robbins <[email-masked]> writes:

  sr> The reason I'm asking is: I had to slightly change the alloca
  sr> magic incantation in acconfig.h.  I ended up moving down to the
  sr> bottom -- so it appears near the end of config.h.  However, there
  sr> was a comment in the magic code claiming "AIX requires this to be
  sr> the first thing in the file."  Since that is no longer the case,
  sr> it would be nice if you could verify that the code works --- using
  sr> vendor compiler if possible.

Why was this move necessary?  Whenever possible I prefer to believe the
documentation on these issues; they're almost always there for good
reason.  Simply verifying it works on one system isn't a good enough
test, IMO; for example, AIX 3.x is still in use in some places, and
that's a bletcherous OS.  It might well be that it works to move
alloca.h on some versions of the OS and with some compilers, but not
others.

Unless there're very, very good reasons to require moving this, I
suggest it be moved back again...

PS. That warning is definitely for the vendor compiler; GCC doesn't care
    in what order alloca.h is included on any OS.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>         Network Management Development
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
--
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: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 16:23:08 -0400 (EDT)

On 5 Apr 1999, Paul D. Smith wrote:

> reason.

That depends on who writes the docs.  

How do I know that the quoted statement wasn't written by someone with a
broken AIX setup?  Or by someone who failed to compile something, moved
the pragma to the top of the file, found it worked, but didn't bother
trying to debug the problem further?  It might be only that the pragma
must occur before including some particular system header. 

That aside, the changes I did were not as severe as you might think.  The
old config.h ended up looking something like this:

	#if HAVE_ALLOCA_H
	#  include <alloca.h>
	#else
	... do #pragma if on AIX, else declare it as char* alloca() ...
	#endif
	...
	#define HAVE_ALLOCA_H
	...

As you might guess, this causes an incorrect declaration when we have
<alloca.h>.  At the least, one needs to define HAVE_ALLOCA_H *before*
using it.  So I moved the alloca magic down to the top of the @BOTTOM@
section.  It appears in config.h after all the autoconf'd #defines and
*before* all #includes. 

Now, I can believe that AIX requires the pragma before including some
system headers.  I find it harder to believe it matters whether you do
some #defines first.  Of course, I may be wrong. 

> Simply verifying it works on one system isn't a good enough
> test,

Yes, of course.  I know that.  I welcome some hard facts on this matter. 
I asked the autoconf folks, and got no response. 

In the absence of facts, I will go with my hunch that you can do #defines
before a #pragam.