Re: [dev] pertag and bstack patches to dwm incompatible

From: Andrew Antle <>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 11:56:07 -0400

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Donald Allen <> wrote:
> dwm-5.8.2: if you attempt to apply both the pertag and bstack patches to
> dwm, the resulting code will not compile. The reason is that the definition
> of the monitor struct is moved after the include of config.h in dwm.c by
> the pertag patch. The bstack patch includes the bstack and bstackhoriz
> functions (which reference the monitor struct) in config.h. The code won't
> compile, because those references to the monitor struct are now forward
> references.
> I have fixed this by inserting the bstack and bstackhoriz functions directly
> into dwm.c, just after the analogous tile function. Function prototypes for
> bstack and bstackhoriz are also needed in the /* Function declarations */
> section. For the community, this could easily be fixed by generating a .diff
> to dwm.c for the bstack patch, rather than including the code in config.h.
> I also note that simply attempting to apply the bstack patch fails (I did
> this with vanilla 5.8.2 -- no pertag patch applied):
> patch -p1 < dwm-5.8.2-bstack.diff
> patching file bstack.c
> patching file bstackhoriz.c
> patching file config.def.h
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 29 with fuzz 1.
> Hunk #2 FAILED at 36.
> 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file config.def.h.rej
> It appears that whoever updated this patch for 5.8.2 didn't bother to test
> whether it actually worked, which is disappointing. I hand-edited the lines
> that patch refused to insert.
> /Don

Why don't you fix these patches and submit them?

Andrew Antle
<andrew dot antle at gmail dot com>
Received on Wed Jul 07 2010 - 17:56:07 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Jul 07 2010 - 18:00:03 CEST