--- Eddy De Greef <eddy_de_greef@...> wrote:
> Scott J. Tringali wrote:
> > TK Soh wrote:
> > > Would switching to XtAppCreateShell defeat the original intention >
> > > of the hierarchy change? If not, perhaps someone can help put in >
> > > the fix please.
> > > Honestly, this seg-fault thing is making me very uncomfortable.
> > I don't think it would be a problem, XtAppCreateShell can create a
> > TopLevelShell, right? Looks like it. This might very well be a
> > better fix. I have not tried it yet.
> > I think I missed part of the conversation... does using
> > XtAppCreateShell fix the problem, or just avoid a crash but still
> > trigger bad memory reads/writes?
I just noticed that part of our conversation had been sent to
develop@..., and somehow _some_ of them went through, but some [of mine]
were lost. Perhaps we should stay away from develop@... until it becomes
more dependable. While we are at it, should be avoid the list setup by Michael
also? I'm getting too many duplicates in my inbox to decide which one I should
> It seemed to fix the problem on my test example. It didn't crash
> and the bad memory reads/writes were gone.
> I did a quick test with NEdit, and worked too. I didn't
> check with Purify, but I will tomorrow.
Over here, if I replace CreateWidget() with CreateShellWithBestVis(), nedit
seemed to run fine. Is there any tests we can run to verify if it still me the
goals of the hierarchy change?
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes