Mike Emmel wrote: > I can tell you it will probably be the same. What? Pango+Gdk+DirectFB consume much more CPU than only DirectFB with a simple text layout.
> If you need high performance text rendering then pango is not what you > should be using. AFAIK Pango from the old days, that's true. > I've written a small library based on libxft called demontic that is > the beginings of a simple text rendering library for cairo. I don't > think you will see any real speed up using directfb libraries directly > since both cairo and directfb simply call into freetype and render the > resulting glyph directly. The only difference would be if the directfb > blit is accelerated and the one used by cairo is not. If this is the > case then its a bug in the cairo implementation and should be fixed. > I'm not saying its perfect now since i've not verified the cairo blit > paths and caching but there should be no difference between cairo and > using the directfb freetype bindings if/when the cairo font > implementation is correct. The core font rendering of DirectFB is faster than using Blit(), because it's looping internally through all the characters and does the internal driver calls directly. But you can use BatchBlit() which should catch up with the core quite well. I'm not sure what you mean with "both cairo and directfb simply call into freetype". DirectFB does that only once for each glyph and caches the result, from then on just blits the corresponding cache location. -- Best regards, Denis Oliver Kropp .------------------------------------------. | DirectFB - Hardware accelerated graphics | | http://www.directfb.org/ | "------------------------------------------" _______________________________________________ directfb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.directfb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/directfb-dev
