They are safe, since they use the rust `std::env` stuff. Making them
safe lets downstream to determine that `std::env` is used and not the
`libc` env manipulation routines, which are unsafe.
* macOS & iOS: Refactor EventWrapper
* macOS & iOS: Make EventLoopWindowTarget independent of the user event
* iOS: Use MainThreadMarker instead of marking functions unsafe
* Make iOS thread safe
We use raw-window-handle extensive in the public API as well as we
force the users to use it to get some essential data for interop, thus
reexport it.
Fixes: #2913.
Inner panics could make it hard to trouble shoot the issues and for some
users it's not desirable.
The inner panics were left only when they are used to `assert!` during
development.
This reverts commit 9f91bc413fe20618bd7090829832bb074aab15c3 which
reverted the original patch which was merged without a proper review.
Fixes: #500.
Inner panics could make it hard to trouble shoot the issues and for some
users ints not desirable.
The inner panics were left only when they are used to `assert!` during
development.
At the moment, the with_x11_visual function takes a pointer and
immediately dereferences it to get the visual info inside. As it is safe
to pass a null pointer to this function, it is unsound. This commit
replaces the pointer parameter with a visual ID, and then uses that ID
to look up the actual visual under
the X11 setup. As this is what was already practically happening before,
this change shouldn't cause any performance downgrades.
This is a breaking change, but it's done in the name of soundness so it
should be okay. It should be trivial for end users to accommodate it,
as it's just a matter of getting the visual ID from the pointer to the
visual before passing it in.
Signed-off-by: John Nunley <dev@notgull.net>
Mark it as breaking, since some clients relied on that behavior, simply
because dispatching clients queue always woke up a winit, meaning that
they won't be able to use user events for this sake.
Nothing changed from the user point of view, other than they should
use the `raw-window-handle`, which is objectively better, given that
it reduces the amount of `cfg` guards in downstream code.
Lifetimes don't work nicely when dealing with multithreaded environments
in the current design of the existing winit's event handling model, so
remove it in favor of `InnerSizeWriter` fences passed to client, so they
could try to update the size.
Fixes#1387.
The idea that redraw events are dispatched with a specific ordering
that makes it possible to specifically report when we have finished
dispatching redraw events isn't portable and the way in which we
dispatched RedrawEventsCleared was inconsistent across backends.
More generally speaking, there is no inherent relationship between
redrawing and event loop iterations. An event loop may wake up at any
frequency depending on what sources of input events are being listened
to but redrawing is generally throttled and in some way synchronized
with the display frequency.
Similarly there's no inherent relationship between a single event loop
iteration and the dispatching of any specific kind of "main" event.
An event loop wakes up when there are events to read (e.g. input
events or responses from a display server / compositor) and goes back
to waiting when there's nothing else to read.
There isn't really a special kind of "main" event that is dispatched
in order with respect to other events.
What we can do more portably is emit an event when the event loop
is about to block and wait for new events.
In practice this is very similar to how MainEventsCleared was
implemented except it wasn't the very last event previously since
redraw events could be dispatched afterwards.
The main backend where we don't strictly know when we're going to
wait for events is Web (since the real event loop is internal to
the browser). For now we emulate AboutToWait on Web similar to how
MainEventsCleared was dispatched.
In practice most applications almost certainly shouldn't care about
AboutToWait because the frequency of event loop iterations is
essentially arbitrary and usually irrelevant.
Considering the possibility of re-running an event loop via run_ondemand
then it's more correct to say that the loop is about to exit without
assuming it's going to be destroyed.
