<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Assertion "(_cairo_atomic_int_get (&(&surface->ref_count)->ref_count) > 0)"" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91967#c24">Comment # 24</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Assertion "(_cairo_atomic_int_get (&(&surface->ref_count)->ref_count) > 0)"" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91967">bug 91967</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:alberts.muktupavels@gmail.com" title="Alberts Muktupāvels <alberts.muktupavels@gmail.com>"> Alberts Muktupāvels</a> <pre>(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=91967#c23">comment #23</a>) > But I think the proposed fix is dirty. It relies on the safety check inside > the cairo_surface_destroy. Cleanly written code shouldn't do this. The > control flow should never get into the cairo_surface_destroy for the second > time, that's why I wrote "maybe there is a better fix". But this is > definitely question for the upstream maintainers. I don't want to agree on this. Check what could happen if it is called this way: _get_image_surface (..., ..., FALSE); I am too lazy to count, but there are definitely multiple paths that could end up calling cairo_surface_destroy (&image->base); when image is still NULL. Think about this way - setting it to NULL after destroying is same as if that function would have been called with try_shm = FALSE.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>