These functions are entry points of the DDX (or stubs thereof), not supposed
to be called by any drivers, so no need to keep them exported.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
These aren't used by any drivers/modules, and it doesn't seem make much
sense doing so, thus no need to keep them exported.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
These are only used inside xkb internally, so no need to keep them
in a public header.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
These are only used inside xkb, not by any drivers, so no need to
keep them in public header.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Not used by any external drivers/modules, so no need to keep it public.
Since modesetting is using it, still needs _X_EXPORT, as long as it's
a module.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This macro isn't used anywhere (also not in drivers), so no need
to keep it around any longer.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Not used by any external modules, and an implementation
detail anyways, so no need to keep it in public header.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
USE_BACKGROUND_PIXEL and USE_BORDER_PIXEL aren't used anywhere,
neither in Xserver nor any drivers, so can be dropped now.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
It's only ever used inside dix/grabs.c, no outside users,
no no need to keep it public.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
We're clearing the whole object size anyways, so we can directly
use calloc() instead of malloc() plus memset().
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
a) an internal function that's not used by any drivers
b) conflicting with function/define of same name on win32
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
No need for using a complex callback machinery, if we just move the
little pieces of byte-swapping directly into the request handler.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Not used by any drivers/modules, so no need to keep it exported.
Also adding a bit of documentation.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The supported platforms already have asprintf() and vasprintf(),
so there's no need for having our own implementation anymore.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
We can write down the function name directly. Nobody else than a few
define's in here using that macro.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Make it type-safe and a bit more obvious what it really does,
also adding some inline documentation. Since it's just some
bit shifting magic, it's qualified for inlining.
The CLIENT_ID() macro isn't used by any external modules, so the
new function doesn't need to be in a public header.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Helper function for retrieving the owning client of an OtherClients.
It's an actual function, so callers don't need access to internal
knowledge (definition of struct _OtherClients, clients[] array, ...)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Hide internals (drop the need to include windowstr.h), make it typesafe
as well as the naming easier to understand.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
The old PCCONS driver only seems to be used on minimal install disks and
cannot coexist with newer ones (at least that's the feedback I've gotten
from BSD community), so there's probably no practical use case for
supporting it in Xorg anymore.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Both xlib as well as the Xserver use the same identifier "GC" for
different types. While on xlib it's just the numerical ID of a GC,
the xserver defines a struct for it by the same name. This is this
ugly and needs ridiculous hacks for Xserver code that needs xlib.
Easy to solve by just renaming the GC typedef to GCRec (consistent
with how we're naming other structs) and replacing GC* by GCPtr.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Usually no*Extension fields shouldn't be needed by drivers, but there
are a few exceptions: some drivers need to know whether composite or
Xinerama are active.
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>
It's always enabled for very long time now (at least since meson transition),
there doesn't seem to be any need to ever disable it again. So we can reduce
code complexity by removing all the ifdef's.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Right now, extensions that need to be called after the CreateScreenResources
proc had been run, must wrap the screen proc vector directly (all of them
forming kind of daisy chain), and so - when called - temporarily restore the
previous one, call it, wrap again, and if the call was successful finally
doing it's own stuff. (same is done for many other procs)
While that approach is looking nice and elegant on the drawing board, it's
complicated, dangerous like a chainsaw and makes debugging hard, leading to
pretty blurred API borders.
Instead introducing a simple approach for letting extension hook into a
post-CreateScreenResources callback list safely, w/o having to care much
about side effects with the call chain. Extensions now can simply register
their business logic and get called back - w/o ever having to mess with the
ScreenRec's internal structures.
Note that these hooks are executed *AFTER* the original CreateScreenResources()
proc had been called SUCCESSFULLY (returned TRUE), so callees can rely on
the DDX/driver had already done it's job.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Right now, extension specific pixmap destruction procedures are implemented
by wrapping the ScreenRec's DestroyPixmap() proc pointer: the extensions are
storing the original pointer in their private data and putting in their own one.
On each call, their proc restores the original one, calls it, and switches back
again. When multiple extensions doing so, they're forming a kind of daisy chain.
(the same is done for lots of other procs)
While that approach is looking nice and elegant on the drawing board, it's
complicated, dangerous like a chainsaw and makes debugging hard, leading to
pretty blurred API borders.
It's even getting worse: the proc also has to do ref counting, and only destroy
the pixmap if refconter reaching zero - that's all done in the individual screen
drivers. Therefore, all extensions must check for refcnt == 1, in order to know
when to really act.
This commit introduces a simple approach for letting extension hook into the
pixmap destruction safely, w/o having to care much about side effects with
the call chain. Extensions now can simply register their destructor proc
(and an opaque pointer) and get called back - w/o ever having to mess with
the ScreenRec's internal structures.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Right now, extension specific actions on screen closing implemented by wrapping
the ScreenRec's PositionWindow() proc pointer: the extensions are storing the
original pointer in their private data and putting in their own one. On each
call, their proc restores the original one, calls it, and switches back again.
When multiple extensions doing so, they're forming a kind of daisy chain.
(the same is done for lots of other procs)
While that approach is looking nice and elegant on the drawing board, it's
complicated, dangerous like a chainsaw and makes debugging hard, leading to
pretty blurred API borders.
This commit introduces a simple approach for letting extension hook into the
screen closing path safely, w/o having to care much about side effects with
the call chain. Extensions now can simply register their hook proc (and an
opaque pointer) and get called back - w/o ever having to mess with the
ScreenRec's internal structures. These hooks are called before the original
vector (usually handled by DDX/screen driver directly) is called.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Right now, extension specific actions on window positioning are implemented
by wrapping the ScreenRec's PositionWindow() proc pointer: the extensions are
storing the original pointer in their private data and putting in their own one.
On each call, their proc restores the original one, calls it, and switches back
again. When multiple extensions doing so, they're forming a kind of daisy chain.
(the same is done for lots of other procs)
While that approach is looking nice and elegant on the drawing board, it's
complicated, dangerous like a chainsaw and makes debugging hard, leading to
pretty blurred API borders.
This commit introduces a simple approach for letting extension hook into the
window positioning path safely, w/o having to care much about side effects
with the call chain. Extensions now can simply register their hook proc
(and an opaque pointer) and get called back - w/o ever having to mess with
the ScreenRec's internal structures. These hooks are called before the original
vector (usually handled by DDX/screen driver directly) is called.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Right now, extension specific window destruction procedures are implemented
by wrapping the ScreenRec's DestroyWindow() proc pointer: the extensions are
storing the original pointer in their private data and putting in their own one.
On each call, their proc restores the original one, calls it, and switches back
again. When multiple extensions doing so, they're forming a kind of daisy chain.
(the same is done for lots of other procs)
While that approach is looking nice and elegant on the drawing board, it's
complicated, dangerous like a chainsaw and makes debugging hard, leading to
pretty blurred API borders.
This commit introduces a simple approach for letting extension hook into the
window destruction safely, w/o having to care much about side effects with
the call chain. Extensions now can simply register their destructor proc
(and an opaque pointer) and get called back - w/o ever having to mess with
the ScreenRec's internal structures.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
There might be a chance that RegionUninit() is trying to free() some
struct that's actually coming from .data segment.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult