Hello Tristan, On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 02:21:49PM -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > but seriously, I think it would be a noble cause to make `abort()' on oom > optional but it would require alot of work. The entire GTK+ codebase would > have to be refactored. To start with: class / instance initialization > functions in > GObject would have to support oom conditions and return FALSE if they werent > capable to allocate enough resources (right now they return `void'). > > many many lines of code... But IMO, definitly a noble cause :) I've thought about this, but I don't have that much time right now -- it would imply redefinition of interfaces. What I was asking about was just to define something like g_set_oom_handler and call it instead of abort(). So, my question remains: would it be enough to modify g_error? With kind regards, Baurjan. _______________________________________________ gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
