Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 12:10:47 +0200 From: Stefan Eggers <seggers@semyam.dinoco.de> To: Henry Vogt <henry@MX.BA-Stuttgart.De> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, seggers@semyam.dinoco.de Subject: Re: State of current... Message-ID: <199807201010.MAA07091@semyam.dinoco.de> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 17 Jul 1998 16:13:50 %2B0200." <199807171413.QAA02990@marylin.goethestr12-net.marbach-neckar>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> So this appears to me like a new introduced bug in the shared memory handling ? > (Or am I wrong that the difference between :0.0 and <hostname>:0.0 is the way > IPC between X-Server and -Client ist handled ?) As far as I know :0.0 uses a Unix domain socket under /tmp while the latter form uses TCP/IP. It only could be shared memory (used by some X protocol extension as far as I know) if the client only tries to use it with a DISPLAY set- ting not including a hostname. I'd have to look up details to know more about this. The bug in questions seems to have something to do with the Unix domain sockets as backing out one of the changes was said to make it work normal again. That is consistent with the difference in the working and non-working DISPLAY settings. Stefan. -- Stefan Eggers Lu4 yao2 zhi1 ma3 li4, Max-Slevogt-Str. 1 ri4 jiu3 jian4 ren2 xin1. 51109 Koeln Federal Republic of Germany To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199807201010.MAA07091>