Sdl and xwin32

I can’t seem to run any sdl applications with xwin32. I can run
glxgears just fine with this same configuration. I’ve attached a
program that does an SDL_Init(), and fails for this reason:

$ ./sdltest
XIO: fatal IO error 104 (Connection reset by peer) on X server "192.168.0.500:0.0"
after 0 requests (0 known processed) with 0 events remaining.

Is this a known issue or just a problem with my configuration?
It happens on every SDL-based application I tested. Any help is
greatly appreciated, thanks.–
Chris Cera http://cera.us
-------------- next part --------------
/----------------------------------------------------------------------------
– gcc -o sdltest sdltest.c sdl-config --cflags --libs; ./sdltest
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
/

#include <stdlib.h>
#include “SDL.h”

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
if ( SDL_Init(SDL_INIT_AUDIO|SDL_INIT_VIDEO) < 0 ) {
fprintf(stderr, “Unable to init SDL: %s\n”, SDL_GetError());
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
return (EXIT_SUCCESS);
}

It works fine with Cygwin/X, so I’m guessing this is an xwin32
problem.

Please disregard this and the previous email. Thanks.

  • Chris Cera <@Chris_Cera> [051119 18:18]:> I can’t seem to run any sdl applications with xwin32. I can run

glxgears just fine with this same configuration. I’ve attached a
program that does an SDL_Init(), and fails for this reason:

$ ./sdltest
XIO: fatal IO error 104 (Connection reset by peer) on X server "192.168.0.500:0.0"
after 0 requests (0 known processed) with 0 events remaining.

Is this a known issue or just a problem with my configuration?
It happens on every SDL-based application I tested. Any help is
greatly appreciated, thanks.


Chris Cera http://cera.us

Chris Cera wrote:

I can’t seem to run any sdl applications with xwin32. I can run
glxgears just fine with this same configuration. I’ve attached a
program that does an SDL_Init(), and fails for this reason:

$ ./sdltest
XIO: fatal IO error 104 (Connection reset by peer) on X server “192.168.0.500:0.0”

192.168.0.500 is definitely not a valid address :slight_smile:

Stephane