You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This bug report was migrated from our old Bugzilla tracker.
Reported in version: don't know Reported for operating system, platform: All, All
Comments on the original bug report:
On 2006-03-31 01:11:37 +0000, Sam Lantinga wrote:
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:38:27 -0500
From: "Shane M. Walton" swalton75@cox.net
Subject: Re: [SDL] SDL_DisplayYUVOverlay() segmentation fault
I wanted to add some information and rephrase my question.
The testoverlay.c and testoverlay2.c fail when the SDL_Rect.x/y != 0.
The following occurs:
Created 64x88X3 software YV12 overlay
...
X Error failed request: BadValue (integer parameter out of range for
operation)
Major opcode of failed request: 145 (MIT-SHM)
Minor opcode of failed request: 3 (X_ShmPutImage)
Value in failed request: 0x1b8
Serial number of failed request: 40
Current serial number in output stream: 41
On 2006-04-17 01:40:18 +0000, Sam Lantinga wrote:
This is fixed in CVS.
On 2006-04-17 01:56:37 +0000, Sam Lantinga wrote:
Actually, this is active for all overlay drivers.
On 2006-04-17 02:46:47 +0000, Sam Lantinga wrote:
The clipping is done at a higher level, and the low level functions are
passed clipped rectangles. Drivers which don't support source clipping
have not been changed, so the image will be squished instead of clipped,
but at least they will no longer crash when the destination rect was out
of bounds.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
With the previous logic, the first GameCube controller was given the
product ID 0x0000, which might be used as a special value in some
applications.
With this change the first GameCube controller is given the product ID
0x0100.
This bug report was migrated from our old Bugzilla tracker.
Reported in version: don't know
Reported for operating system, platform: All, All
Comments on the original bug report:
On 2006-03-31 01:11:37 +0000, Sam Lantinga wrote:
On 2006-04-17 01:40:18 +0000, Sam Lantinga wrote:
On 2006-04-17 01:56:37 +0000, Sam Lantinga wrote:
On 2006-04-17 02:46:47 +0000, Sam Lantinga wrote:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: