Mark, Hi. Thanks for the reply. I have used this package "faultlessly" for over 10 years - but alas the last upgrade I could get for it was about 4 years ago. I am dealing with 1-bit geotiff images - and as I said: It works on SuSE 8 but not 9.2. Now I agree that it is likely to be a bug in the software itself (I already have to set the screen pixel dpi to be the same on both axis as this package assumes that and looks only at the first dpi value), but I am really trying to find a workaround so that I can carry on upgrading my OS and still use this package. I should have access to the SuSE 9.2 box next week so I'll try to do some proper tests. Thanks again for your input. Regards, Zoltan. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Vojkovich" <mvojkovi@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: <xfree86@xxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 10:24 PM Subject: Re: X Error of failed request: BadAccess > On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, Zoltan Szecsei wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > Please can someone help me to overcome this issue. > > > > I have a (oldish) raster & vector graphics product that I have used > > successfully up until SuSE SLES8 (XFree86 Version 4.2.0) but on upgrading > > to SuSE 9.1, I get the > > errors mentioned below - but only when trying to display a tiff image - the > > vector side of the package works fine. > > > > Maybe if I knew what it was trying to do, I could figure out a way to make > > it work. > > > > (yes, I have searched the buglists - came up with 200 hits, but I could not > > identify any of them to be of any help) > > > > TIA, > > Zoltan > > > > > > > > > > X Error of failed request: BadAccess (attempt to access private resource > > denied) > > Major opcode of failed request: 145 (MIT-SHM) > > Minor opcode of failed request: 3 (X_ShmPutImage) > > Serial number of failed request: 194 > > Current serial number in output stream: 195 > > For X_ShmPutImage, this error (BadAccess) will occur only when the > application requests that the server copy from an area outside of the > shm segment. This is typically (always?) an application bug. I > can't think of any cases when it wouldn't be an application bug. > > A common cause for this bug in applications is making incorrect > assumptions about the XImage format (eg. assuming depth 24 is 24 bits > per pixel rather than 32 bits per pixel like the XImage says). > > > Mark. > _______________________________________________ > XFree86 mailing list > XFree86@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xfree86 > _______________________________________________ XFree86 mailing list XFree86@xxxxxxxxxxx http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xfree86
