-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 48
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
X11: Wrong behaviour for "weird" visuals? #184
Comments
Patch to the winit example that makes it print some pixel values that are invalid according to the docs. Output for me is
(After having written this, I noticed that the output doesn't change even if I do not pick a non-default visual and stay with depth=42. Apparently the X11 server doesn't clear "unimportant" bits.) diff --git a/examples/winit.rs b/examples/winit.rs
index 7c903e2..679720f 100644
--- a/examples/winit.rs
+++ b/examples/winit.rs
@@ -5,9 +5,28 @@ use winit::event_loop::{ControlFlow, EventLoop};
use winit::keyboard::{Key, NamedKey};
use winit::window::WindowBuilder;
+use winit::platform::x11::WindowBuilderExtX11;
+use winit::raw_window_handle::{HasDisplayHandle, DisplayHandle, RawDisplayHandle};
+
+fn pick_visual() -> u32 {
+ use x11rb::connection::Connection;
+
+ let (conn, screen) = x11rb::rust_connection::RustConnection::connect(None).unwrap();
+ // Find a random visual with depth=32
+ conn.setup().roots[screen].allowed_depths.iter().filter(|depth| depth.depth == 32)
+ .map(|depth| {
+ let visual = depth.visuals[0];
+ println!("Using visual {:x} of class {:?}, {} bits per rgb, masks {:x}, {:x}, {:x}",
+ visual.visual_id, visual.class, visual.bits_per_rgb_value, visual.red_mask, visual.green_mask, visual.blue_mask);
+ visual.visual_id
+ })
+ .next()
+ .unwrap()
+}
+
fn main() {
let event_loop = EventLoop::new().unwrap();
- let window = Rc::new(WindowBuilder::new().build(&event_loop).unwrap());
+ let window = Rc::new(WindowBuilder::new().with_x11_visual(pick_visual()).build(&event_loop).unwrap());
#[cfg(target_arch = "wasm32")]
{
@@ -52,7 +71,15 @@ fn main() {
}
}
+ buffer[0] |= 0x70 << 24;
+ buffer[1] |= 0xff << 24;
+ buffer[2] |= 0x10 << 24;
+ buffer[3] |= 0x90 << 24;
+ buffer[4] |= 0xa0 << 24;
buffer.present().unwrap();
+
+ let fetched = surface.fetch().unwrap();
+ println!("Some pixel values: {:08x?}", &fetched[..5]);
}
}
Event::WindowEvent { |
Generally "assuming RGBA" is a problem for In X11’s case though you have to go out of your way to use a non-RGBA format. I think there is a lot of software that breaks on non-RGBA aside from |
A visual describes how colors are laid out by the X11 server. So far, softbuffer did not do anything with visuals and just passed them around. This commit adds checks that should ensure that a given visual actually lays out pixels in the only format supported by softbuffer: - 32 bit per pixel - 00RRGGBB byte order In this patch, I also try to handle big endian systems and mixed endian situations where we are e.g. running on a big endian system and talking to a little endian X11 server. However, this is all theoretical and completely untested. I only tested my X11 server's default visual works and some ARGB visual is rejected. Fixes: rust-windowing#184 Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <[email protected]>
A visual describes how colors are laid out by the X11 server. So far, softbuffer did not do anything with visuals and just passed them around. This commit adds checks that should ensure that a given visual actually lays out pixels in the only format supported by softbuffer: - 32 bit per pixel - 00RRGGBB byte order In this patch, I also try to handle big endian systems and mixed endian situations where we are e.g. running on a big endian system and talking to a little endian X11 server. However, this is all theoretical and completely untested. I only tested my X11 server's default visual works and some ARGB visual is rejected. Fixes: rust-windowing#184 Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <[email protected]>
A visual describes how colors are laid out by the X11 server. So far, softbuffer did not do anything with visuals and just passed them around. This commit adds checks that should ensure that a given visual actually lays out pixels in the only format supported by softbuffer: - 32 bit per pixel - 00RRGGBB byte order In this patch, I also try to handle big endian systems and mixed endian situations where we are e.g. running on a big endian system and talking to a little endian X11 server. However, this is all theoretical and completely untested. I only tested my X11 server's default visual works and some ARGB visual is rejected. Fixes: #184 Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: John Nunley <[email protected]>
According to the docs, pixels are represented as:
softbuffer/src/lib.rs
Lines 371 to 378 in 64dad39
However, I cannot find anything in
src/x11.rs
that actually ensures this. Any visual will do.For my currently running X11 server, all visuals actually seem to use this format:
However, not all of these are 24 bit depth:
The last one of these is actually ARGB (and I bet many others, too; I only checked this one).
How should softbuffer handle these? Should it reject any visual that does not match its expectation? Should it just ignore this and hope for the best? Should it try to actively convert between visuals (sloooooooow)?
This might also be endianness-related, so #109. I don't actually know what big endian X11 servers usually do here. Worse, what happens to a client running on a big-endian machine and talking to a little endian server (or vice-versa)?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: