On Samstag, 5. November 2005 14:05, Laz wrote:
> On Friday 04 November 2005 18:01, Mark Adams wrote:
> > > Here's two patches
> >
> > No, _here's_ two patches. Grr.
>
> After spending all of last night and this morning trying to check out viafb
> from CVS I finally realised that I could grab a tarball from the browse CVS
> bit of the DirectFB web site!
>
> Just patched and rebuilt viafb CVS (from just now) and DirectFB CVS (from a
> few days back) and it looks like it is working! Only a quick test so far but
> with my DLOP_FIELD_PARITY bits turned on, I no longer get the stuttering and
> A-V sync problems.
>
> Every now and then, there is a blip which is probably due to the odd
> 'flip-to-flip' times I was seeing. What is my best way of trying to reduce
> the latency? Kernel pre-emption + low latency stuff? There isn't exactly a
> lot else running on the PC! I think these patches have pushed up the CPU
> usage by 5% or so but htat may just be my imagination: the main process
> hovers between 62 and 75%, depending on the stream.
>
> Every now and then, it will bail out with the following seg fault:
> (!) [ 4491: 0.000] --> Caught signal 11 (at 0x318, invalid address) <--
> (!) [ 4542: 0.003] --> Caught signal 11 (at 0xb293c3d2, invalid address)
> <--
Are all directfb calls protected by try{ .. } catch { .. } ?
>
> I've yet to look into this with gdb but has anyone else seen this sort of
> error?
>
> I'll give it a while longer for testing and then I'll clean up my patch for
> softdevice and pass it on to Stefan.
You may just send me your current snapshot too.
--
Stefan Lucke
_______________________________________________
directfb-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.directfb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/directfb-users
