After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 144242 - Size of the MetaWindow struct makes Havoc cringe
Size of the MetaWindow struct makes Havoc cringe
Status: RESOLVED INCOMPLETE
Product: metacity
Classification: Other
Component: general
2.8.x
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Metacity maintainers list
Metacity maintainers list
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2004-06-13 05:06 UTC by Elijah Newren
Modified: 2010-05-10 15:09 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Description Elijah Newren 2004-06-13 05:06:50 UTC 
From comment 74 of bug 118372:

"I'm cringing a bit at adding more size to MetaWindow; my best thought on how to
avoid at least initial_timestamp* is to take that and initial_workspace and
move them into some kind of data structure that only exists when the window
hasn't been mapped yet. Probably best not to do this change in your patch, but
it would be good to have a bug open on it. What I'm thinking is e.g. a hash
table from unmapped windows to the initial state info to use for them, or
something."
Comment 1 Javier Jardón (IRC: jjardon) 2010-03-24 03:04:52 UTC 
You reported this bug a while ago and there hasn't been any activity in it
recently. We were wondering if this is still an issue for you.

Can you please check again if the issue you reported here still happens in a
recent version and update this report by adding a comment and adjusting
the 'Version' field?

Again thank you for reporting this and sorry that it could not be fixed for the
version you originally used here.

Set to NEEDINFO, so without feedback this report will be closed as INCOMPLETE
after 6 weeks.
Comment 2 Tobias Mueller 2010-05-10 15:09:44 UTC 
Closing this bug report as no further information has been provided. Please feel free to reopen this bug if you can provide the information asked for.
Thanks!