XCopyColormapAndFree/5 threw an assertion:

    520|4 5 00014017 1 2|Assertion XCopyColormapAndFree-5.(A)
    520|4 5 00014017 1 3|When a colourmap argument does not name a valid colourmap,
    520|4 5 00014017 1 4|then a BadColor error occurs.
    520|4 5 00014017 1 5|METH: Create a bad colourmap by creating and freeing a colourmap.
    520|4 5 00014017 1 6|METH: Call test function using bad colourmap as the colourmap argument.
    520|4 5 00014017 1 7|METH: Verify that a BadColor error occurs.
    520|4 5 00014017 1 8|unexpected signal 6 (SIGABRT) received
    220|4 5 2 15:05:53|UNRESOLVED
    410|4 5 1 15:05:53|IC End
    510|4|system 0: Abandoning testset: caught unexpected signal 11 (SIGSEGV)

More specifically:

    lt-XCopyColormapAndFree: xcb_io.c:533: _XAllocID: Assertion `ret != inval_id' failed.

This bug was introduced (by following my advice, d'oh) in:

    commit 99a2cf1a


    Author: Tapani Pälli <tapani.palli@intel.com>
    Date:   Mon May 13 08:29:49 2019 +0300

        Protect colormap add/removal with display lock

In that patch we moved the call to _XcmsCopyCmapRecAndFree inside the
display lock. The problem is said routine has side effects, including
trying to implicitly create a colormap in some cases. Since we don't run
the XID handler until SyncHandle() we would see inconsistent internal
xlib state, triggering the above assert.

Fix this by dropping and re-taking the display lock before calling into
XCMS.

Reviewed-by: Tapani Pälli <tapani.palli@intel.com>