[comp.windows.x] problems with HP widgets

shgoh@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Seow-Hiong Goh) (05/01/89)

Hi,

I have an  irritating problem with the HP widgets. I don't
seem to be able to find  the root of the problem. 

I try to create a cascading widget and keep getting a "segmentation
fault" error.  I create a pane which is a child of a shell. THe
pane has a few button children. I create another pane with
buttons. The second pane is XtNattachTo'ed to one of the button in
the first pane. Simple right? Well, I do get a display of the first
pane with buttons. One of the button have an arrow on its right to
denote that there is cascading menu. When I move my cursor to the
error, the program fails and results in  "segmentation fault" error.

Well, I thought it must be some thing it did. So I try running some
of the test programs (Xhp/test/menuTest1 and menuTest5) and have
similar errors (my version of these programs have bugs, I have to
fixed them). I still don't believe, so I  type in the demo
program about menu listed in the document "Programming With the
HP X Widgets", page4-6 to 4-10. I still have the same errors.

There must be some thing wrong with the Xhp Cascading Widgets (
at least my version of it from the X11R3 tape). Have you come
across any fixes. Could you help? Maybe you can post the problem
in the X11 bulletin .


On compilation (all the programs with menu) there was a common
warning. The nature of the warning is also quite perculiar. The
warning is from the statement:

   btns[0] = XtCreateManagedWidget ("btn0", XwmenubuttonWidgetClass,
                            panes[0], btnArgs, XtNumber(btnArgs));

The warning are :
Representation type Int must match superclass's to override borderwidth
Representation size 4 must match superclass's to override borderwidth
Representation type Int must match superclass's to override borderwidth
Representation size 4 must match superclass's to override borderwidth

I suspect the warnings are from the Xhp widget. The curious thing is
that similar statement follows the one above,

  btns[1] .....
  btns[2] ...

do not result in similar warnings. Think they are connected? I am
quite irritated by the problem. Any help will be much appreciated.

Thanks a lot!

SH
:-)

PS:
As I don't read this newsgroup regularly, please send replies directly
to me at shgoh@cory.berkeley.edu or shgoh@ucbcory (BITNET).