Menu
▾
▴
gtk2-perl-bugs — Bug reports and mail from bugzilla
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2004 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(3) |
Jul
(3) |
Aug
(3) |
Sep
|
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(5) |
Dec
(6) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 |
Jan
|
Feb
(2) |
Mar
(3) |
Apr
(12) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(4) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(15) |
Nov
(8) |
Dec
(4) |
| 2006 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(11) |
Apr
(10) |
May
(105) |
Jun
(12) |
Jul
(42) |
Aug
(54) |
Sep
(15) |
Oct
(14) |
Nov
(27) |
Dec
(3) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
(6) |
Mar
(26) |
Apr
(11) |
May
(28) |
Jun
(5) |
Jul
(9) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(8) |
Dec
(7) |
| 2008 |
Jan
(4) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(6) |
Jun
(7) |
Jul
|
Aug
(16) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(3) |
Dec
(1) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(37) |
Feb
(19) |
Mar
(32) |
Apr
(7) |
May
(2) |
Jun
(15) |
Jul
(8) |
Aug
(12) |
Sep
(2) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(6) |
Dec
(11) |
| 2010 |
Jan
(11) |
Feb
(5) |
Mar
(56) |
Apr
(75) |
May
(28) |
Jun
(10) |
Jul
(6) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(26) |
Oct
(23) |
Nov
(92) |
Dec
(41) |
| 2011 |
Jan
(6) |
Feb
(2) |
Mar
(2) |
Apr
(8) |
May
(20) |
Jun
(3) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
(32) |
Sep
(6) |
Oct
(9) |
Nov
(3) |
Dec
(15) |
| 2012 |
Jan
(6) |
Feb
(13) |
Mar
|
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
(2) |
Jul
(4) |
Aug
(7) |
Sep
|
Oct
(2) |
Nov
|
Dec
(4) |
| 2013 |
Jan
(9) |
Feb
(15) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
|
May
(1) |
Jun
|
Jul
(9) |
Aug
|
Sep
(5) |
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(4) |
Dec
(11) |
| 2014 |
Jan
|
Feb
(3) |
Mar
(8) |
Apr
|
May
(4) |
Jun
(2) |
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(9) |
Sep
|
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
| 2015 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(2) |
Apr
(3) |
May
(7) |
Jun
(3) |
Jul
(5) |
Aug
(15) |
Sep
|
Oct
(1) |
Nov
|
Dec
(6) |
| 2016 |
Jan
(4) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(6) |
Oct
(6) |
Nov
(7) |
Dec
(8) |
| 2017 |
Jan
(7) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(4) |
Jul
(2) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(8) |
| 2018 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(10) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(5) |
Sep
(4) |
Oct
(3) |
Nov
(3) |
Dec
(4) |
| 2019 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2021 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(40) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-27 14:16:22
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635120 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified Torsten Schoenfeld <kaffeetisch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #175208|none |committed status| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-27 14:16:16
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635120 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified Torsten Schoenfeld <kaffeetisch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #4 from Torsten Schoenfeld <kaf...@gm...> 2010-11-27 14:16:05 UTC --- Looks great, committed. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-27 14:08:43
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635733 gnome-perl | Glib | unspecified Torsten Schoenfeld <kaffeetisch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #175209|none |committed status| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-27 14:08:36
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635733 gnome-perl | Glib | unspecified Torsten Schoenfeld <kaffeetisch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #1 from Torsten Schoenfeld <kaf...@gm...> 2010-11-27 14:08:27 UTC --- I think that's correct, yes. Patch committed, thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-27 13:53:25
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635809 gnome-perl | Glib | unspecified Torsten Schoenfeld <kaffeetisch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kaf...@gm... --- Comment #3 from Torsten Schoenfeld <kaf...@gm...> 2010-11-27 13:53:13 UTC --- (In reply to comment #0) > I'm looking at the change below to give back the input SV if value_validate() > says it's ok already, and to copy out the GValue if it says it was changed. > This would be for both 1.220 and the cvs head. Sounds correct to me. > The only thing I'm slightly unsure is whether setting the GValue to point into > the original SV is right. Is g_param_value_validate() expected to set in a new > block of memory if it makes a change, or will it modify the content in-place? > I don't suppose anyone has every actually created a paramspec subtype taking a > GdkRectangle or similar and mangled in value_validate(). It seems like a value_validate vfunc is allowed to do both, modify in-place and install a modified chunk of memory. param_string_validate (in gparamspecs.c), for example, can apparently do both depending on whether G_VALUE_NOCOPY_CONTENTS is set (i.e. whether g_value_set_static_string was used). In git master, we use g_value_set_static_boxed so that the G_VALUE_NOCOPY_CONTENTS flag will be set. So I think any well-behaved paramspec implementation will then have to refrain from modifying the memory in-place. The stable-1-22 branch is safe because it uses g_value_set_boxed which copies the boxed object. Does that sound correct to you? If so, I'll go ahead and commit your patches. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-25 21:07:28
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635809 gnome-perl | Glib | unspecified --- Comment #2 from Kevin Ryde <us...@zi...> 2010-11-25 21:07:16 UTC --- Created an attachment (id=175276) --> (https://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=175276) failing program This program in 1.220 gives a bad return like newrect values: 0 2 3 4 or in the cvs head newrect values: 166513440 2 3 4 In the head it's ok if you don't "undef $rect" since that discards the memory aliased by $newrect. Dunno if that should be merely some pod instead of some code, but returning the original SV helps avoid that problem (by effectively assigning $newrect=$rect instead of mucking about with new boxed pointers). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-25 20:59:17
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635809 gnome-perl | Glib | unspecified --- Comment #1 from Kevin Ryde <us...@zi...> 2010-11-25 20:59:06 UTC --- Created an attachment (id=175275) View: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=175275 Review: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/review?bug=635809&attachment=175275 test case Bit of code for GdkRegion.t exercising value_validate(). Don't think there's any non ref counted boxed in base Glib to try this on. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-25 20:55:57
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635809 gnome-perl | Glib | unspecified Summary: ParamSpec value_validate() on non ref counted boxed Classification: Bindings Product: gnome-perl Version: unspecified OS/Version: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: Normal Component: Glib AssignedTo: gtk...@li... ReportedBy: us...@zi... QAContact: gtk...@li... GNOME target: --- GNOME version: --- Created an attachment (id=175274) View: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=175274 Review: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/review?bug=635809&attachment=175274 patch I think the code I made for value_validate() is no good on non reference counted boxed objects like GdkRectangle. In the 1.220 gperl_value_from_sv() copies to the local GValue, gperl_sv_from_value() makes a pointer into there, ie. doesn't copy), but then the memory is gone by g_value_unset of that local GValue. In the cvs head it's slightly better. gperl_value_from_sv() makes only a pointer to the incoming SV's memory, not a copy, gperl_sv_from_value() too makes a pointer not a copy, so you end up with an alias of the incoming SV. Which is ok so long as you don't naively discard that original SV. I'm looking at the change below to give back the input SV if value_validate() says it's ok already, and to copy out the GValue if it says it was changed. This would be for both 1.220 and the cvs head. The only thing I'm slightly unsure is whether setting the GValue to point into the original SV is right. Is g_param_value_validate() expected to set in a new block of memory if it makes a change, or will it modify the content in-place? I don't suppose anyone has every actually created a paramspec subtype taking a GdkRectangle or similar and mangled in value_validate(). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-24 23:02:19
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635733 gnome-perl | Glib | unspecified Summary: docs GET_PROPERTY/SET_PROPERTY vs boxed Classification: Bindings Product: gnome-perl Version: unspecified OS/Version: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: Normal Component: Glib AssignedTo: gtk...@li... ReportedBy: us...@zi... QAContact: gtk...@li... GNOME target: --- GNOME version: --- Created an attachment (id=175209) View: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=175209 Review: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/review?bug=635733&attachment=175209 doc patch I got bitten by memory management of a GdkColor property in a perl gobject subclass. Is the situation roughly per the attached few words? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-24 22:27:01
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635120 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified Kevin Ryde <user42> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #174725|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #3 from Kevin Ryde <us...@zi...> 2010-11-24 22:26:49 UTC --- Created an attachment (id=175208) View: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=175208 Review: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/review?bug=635120&attachment=175208 patch and test cases Without the empty array test case. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-24 22:22:33
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635120 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified --- Comment #2 from Kevin Ryde <us...@zi...> 2010-11-24 22:22:19 UTC --- Oh, I don't know why I missed that spans==NULL. I might have had a skip zero length patch in progress at the same time. If constructing an array it's extremely annoying to have to check if it's non-empty before calling that sort of func, or the draw_points() of the other bug. Much friendlier to quietly do nothing on an empty input. But I'll take that out of the tests to start with. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-24 22:15:54
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=622324 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified Kevin Ryde <user42> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #164253|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #4 from Kevin Ryde <us...@zi...> 2010-11-24 22:15:41 UTC --- Created an attachment (id=175206) View: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=175206 Review: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/review?bug=622324&attachment=175206 patch and test case This one as an is_writable field. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-24 21:37:33
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635112 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified --- Comment #2 from Kevin Ryde <us...@zi...> 2010-11-24 21:37:23 UTC --- Actually that indent would be cperl-indent-command being over-enthusiastic, but it was probably my own created indent-this-block command extending too far which gave it a look past the __END__ :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-24 21:14:26
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635112 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified Torsten Schoenfeld <kaffeetisch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #1 from Torsten Schoenfeld <kaf...@gm...> 2010-11-24 21:14:12 UTC --- The test belongs in GtkBuildableIface.t, and our copyright footers are not Lisp, so there's no need to align parens. :-) Other than that, the patch looks great. Committed with these changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-24 21:14:25
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635112 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified Torsten Schoenfeld <kaffeetisch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #174717|none |committed status| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-24 20:46:42
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635120 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified Torsten Schoenfeld <kaffeetisch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kaf...@gm... --- Comment #1 from Torsten Schoenfeld <kaf...@gm...> 2010-11-24 20:46:32 UTC --- I hit "assertion `spans != NULL'" for the zero test. So we should probably disallow that case, but at least we shouldn't be using it in the test suite. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-24 20:38:14
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=567668 gnome-perl | Glib | unspecified Torsten Schoenfeld <kaffeetisch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #175132|none |committed status| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-24 20:38:02
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=567668 gnome-perl | Glib | unspecified Torsten Schoenfeld <kaffeetisch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #2 from Torsten Schoenfeld <kaf...@gm...> 2010-11-24 20:37:52 UTC --- Fixing bugs by removing code, terrific! Committed, thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-24 20:11:21
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635648 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified Torsten Schoenfeld <kaffeetisch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #1 from Torsten Schoenfeld <kaf...@gm...> 2010-11-24 20:11:08 UTC --- Good catch, committed. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-24 20:11:20
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635648 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified Torsten Schoenfeld <kaffeetisch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #175137|none |committed status| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-24 19:55:08
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=622324 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified --- Comment #3 from Torsten Schoenfeld <kaf...@gm...> 2010-11-24 19:54:55 UTC --- I agree that the hash representation is not optimal, but we can't change that now. So I'd prefer an implementation of is_writable as a key in the format hash. Of course you could go really fancy and turn the hash into a tied hash that calls the real accessors under the hood. That would also solve the is_disabled problem. See Cairo/CairoPath.xs for an example of an XS implementation of a tied array. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-24 19:49:59
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=625538 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified --- Comment #3 from Torsten Schoenfeld <kaf...@gm...> 2010-11-24 19:49:45 UTC --- The accessors were added in 2.22: <http://library.gnome.org/devel/gdk/2.22/gdk-Images.html>. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-23 22:39:59
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=622324 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified --- Comment #2 from Kevin Ryde <us...@zi...> 2010-11-23 22:39:46 UTC --- I wondered that copying fields to the hash might not be a great idea. A touch wasteful doing it every time an object reaches the perl level, and the bit about is_disabled in principle changing by set_disabled. I don't mind too much either way. A hash field might be more consistent with the other info coming out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-23 22:16:35
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635648 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified Summary: RadioButton/RadioMenuItem get_group funcs not fields Classification: Bindings Product: gnome-perl Version: unspecified OS/Version: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: Normal Component: Gtk2 AssignedTo: gtk...@li... ReportedBy: us...@zi... QAContact: gtk...@li... GNOME target: --- GNOME version: --- Created an attachment (id=175137) View: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=175137 Review: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/review?bug=635648&attachment=175137 patch The Gtk docs claim the "group" fields of RadioButton and RadioMenuItem are "private". Perhaps calling through the get_group funcs would be a good idea (they're available right back to 2.0.x). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.o. <bug...@gn...> - 2010-11-23 22:12:47
|
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=625538 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | unspecified --- Comment #2 from Kevin Ryde <us...@zi...> 2010-11-23 22:12:33 UTC --- The access to pixel values is the key bit. I believe GdkImage is the only way to fetch a pixel value as such from a pixmap/bitmap/window. If working with big bitmaps you might also appreciate having the bits packed into bytes instead of pixbuf 3-bytes per bit. There's no get_foo() accessors apart from the get_colormap() one. I'd suspect there probably won't be in the future, and that it might be unwise to anticipate the names. (Notwithstanding the general gtk tendency to make code bigger and slower by putting access through functions instead of fields! :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. |
13 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
