Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Using calloc() instead of malloc() as preventive measure, so there
never can be any hidden bugs or leaks due uninitialized memory.
The extra cost of using this compiler intrinsic should be practically
impossible to measure - in many cases a good compiler can even deduce
if certain areas really don't need to be zero'd (because they're written
to right after allocation) and create more efficient machine code.
The code pathes in question are pretty cold anyways, so it's probably
not worth even thinking about potential extra runtime costs.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The list of the associated provider's capabilities was always swapped
unconditionally, while it should only be in case of client having
opposite endianess.
Fixes: 426bc0a28e
Reported-By: dasha_uwu
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Part-of: <https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/merge_requests/1977>
Xwayland has its own XYToWindow() handler to account for the case when
the pointer leaves an X11 surface to enter another Wayland native window
(which of course are unknown to Xwayland).
When that occurs, Xwayland will treat it as if the pointer had entered
the root window so that the X11 clients receive an appropriate leave
event.
When the pointer leaves the X11 surface, Xwayland will call
CheckMotion() to update the sprite coordinates and possibly the cursor.
However, CheckMotion() will call back into the XYToWindow() handler,
which will then pretend the window has entered the root window, and that
may cause the wrong cursor to be applied.
To avoid the issue, change the order we do things, by calling
CheckMotion() first prior to clear up the internal focus window so that
the first call to XYToWindow() will return the correct X11 window so we
get to update the cursor correctly.
Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/issues/1811
Signed-off-by: Olivier Fourdan <ofourdan@redhat.com>
Part-of: <https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/merge_requests/1915>
Clears warning from clang 19.1.7:
render/miindex.c:27:9: warning: macro is not used [-Wunused-macros]
27 | #define _MIINDEX_H_
| ^
Signed-off-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith@oracle.com>
Part-of: <https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/merge_requests/1910>
We stopped including this in error messages back in 2008
Clears warning from clang 19.1.7:
os/utils.c:1338:9: warning: macro is not used [-Wunused-macros]
1338 | #define BUGADDRESS BUILDERADDR
| ^
Fixes: ef77e4c44 ("Remove useless commentary from environment and argument processing.")
Signed-off-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith@oracle.com>
Part-of: <https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/merge_requests/1910>
Clears warning from clang 19.1.7:
test/misc.c:239:12: warning: 'return' will never be executed
[-Wunreachable-code-return]
239 | return 0;
Fixes: 46b579e8d ("test: switch the unit tests to something resembling a test suite")
Signed-off-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith@oracle.com>
Part-of: <https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/merge_requests/1910>
Found by clang 19.1.7:
hw/xfree86/drivers/modesetting/driver.c:163:21:
warning: initializer overrides prior initialization of this subobject
[-Winitializer-overrides]
163 | ._modinfo1_ = MODINFOSTRING2,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hw/xfree86/drivers/modesetting/driver.c:162:21:
note: previous initialization is here
162 | ._modinfo1_ = MODINFOSTRING1,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fixes: 2a10eff6c ("xfree86: modsetting: use explicit field initializers for XF86ModuleData")
Signed-off-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith@oracle.com>
Part-of: <https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/merge_requests/1910>
Clears warnings from clang 19.1.7:
test/list.c:95:2: warning: extra ';' outside of a function [-Wextra-semi]
95 | };
| ^
test/list.c:137:2: warning: extra ';' outside of a function [-Wextra-semi]
137 | };
| ^
Fixes: 92788e677 ("test: add some tests for basic list manipulation.")
Signed-off-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith@oracle.com>
Part-of: <https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/merge_requests/1910>
Clears warning from clang 19.1.7:
hw/xfree86/common/xf86DefModeSet.c:288:62:
warning: no newline at end of file [-Wnewline-eof]
288 | const int xf86NumDefaultModes = ARRAY_SIZE(xf86DefaultModes);
| ^
Fixes: 3bf7ff703 ("Size xf86DefaultModes explicitly.")
Signed-off-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith@oracle.com>
Part-of: <https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/merge_requests/1910>
XDM-AUTHORIZATION-2 (IPv6 capable version of -1) was never merged.
SUN-DES-1 was removed by commit 71b207a2e in 2024
MIT-KERBEROS-5 was removed by commit dfbe32b5b in 2007
Fixes: 71b207a2e ("os: drop SUN-DES-1 authentication")
Fixes: dfbe32b5b ("Remove the old Kerberos 5 authentication code.")
Signed-off-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith@oracle.com>
Part-of: <https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/merge_requests/1913>
Allows nroff to insert a line break between iterm in the font path
instead of displaying it as a single, very overlength line.
Signed-off-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith@oracle.com>
Part-of: <https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/merge_requests/1891>
This fixes a crash when we try to send focus events and dereference
FollowKeyboardWin (0x3) as WindowPtr.
A device set to XSetDeviceFocus(FollowKeyboard) is supposed to follow
the focus of the corresponding master device. During ActivateKeyboard
a slave device is detached from the master for the duration for the grab
so we don't actually have a master to follow - leaving our oldWin set to
the FollowKeyboardWin constant. This later crashes when we try to
dereference it.
Fix this by getting the current master (if any), or the saved master (if
temporarily detached due to a grab). And if failing that, use the VCK
as fallback device - that is technically wrong but it's such a niche use
case that it shouldn't matter.
Reproducer:
window = XCreateSimpleWindow(...)
deviceid = any device that is IsXExtensionKeyboard device
XSetDeviceFocus(deviceid, FollowKeyboard, ...)
XGrabDevice(deviceid, window, ...)
Fixes: f01ee198ff ("dix: don't use inputInfo.keyboard to get the focus window in ActivateKbdGrab")
Found-by: Olivier Fourdan <ofourdan@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Olivier Fourdan <ofourdan@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Olivier Fourdan <ofourdan@redhat.com>
Part-of: <https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/merge_requests/1870>
The WriteReplyToClient() macro is used for cases where byte swapping
is implemented in a separate callback function (set in a global vector
table). Since Xwl extension doesn't have such a callback, but does the
byte swapping directly in it's request handlers, there's no need to
call the WriteReplyToClient() macro - we can use WriteToClient() instead.
Fixes: 2700bc6045 - xwayland: add support for the XWAYLAND extension
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Part-of: <https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/merge_requests/1878>
All jobs utilizing kvm (eg. FreeBSD) need the "kvm" runner tag set.
It used to work w/o it, since all runners did have kvm, but in the
new CI there are non-kvm runners, so we really need to set the tag.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Part-of: <https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/merge_requests/1872>
Use the correct macro for the font change of a single argument or
split the argument into two.
43:.BI Keyboard
46:.BI Pointer
52:.BI PointerAbsolute
58:.BI PointerAbsoluteProximity
62:.BI Touch
103:.BI xf86ITEventWaitForSync
-.-.
Wrong distance between sentences in the input file.
Separate the sentences and subordinate clauses; each begins on a new
line. See man-pages(7) ("Conventions for source file layout") and
"info groff" ("Input Conventions").
19:server as input events. It supports the full set of the xf86 driver APIs
20:exposed by Xorg. The primary use cases of this input driver are various
29:is created after the driver is initialized. The paths to the socket is passed
37:Sets the path where the driver will create a named socket. Any existing file
47:Initializes a relative-mode pointer device. It will have four valuators -
53:Initializes an absolute-mode pointer device. It will have four valuators -
87:specifies the protocol version supported by it. If this version is lower than
91:to the driver. Each event is an instance of one of the
93:structs. The length field defines the full length of the struct in bytes and
96:The responses from the server follow the same structure. Each response is an
99:structs. The length field defines the full length of the struct in bytes and
104:event. After sending such event, the client must read of a
106:events. The completion of the read operation indicates that Xorg has fully
-.-.
The name of a man page is typeset in bold and the section in roman
(see man-pages(7)).
24:Please refer to xorg.conf(5) for general configuration
112:Xorg(1), xorg.conf(5), Xserver(1), X(7)
-.-
Additionally:
"read of a xf86... event" -> "read an xf86... event"
Originally from: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1095449
Signed-off-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith@oracle.com>
Part-of: <https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/merge_requests/1875>
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Alan Coopersmith
Olivier Fourdan
Peter Harris
Peter Hutterer
Bjarni Ingi Gislason