> In fact, nano-X has low Graphic features, but for showing some Buttons = > and > drawing a picture it does its job well. The only thing I am annoyed of, = > is > that I cannot run any fonts on it. There is only the standard 13x6 = > font... > I haven=92t also got enough time to test the font engine enough, cause I = > have > to finish a project...=20
> Your directFB port for nano-X? No, I have written a port FLTK-DirectFB. > Does it work on uClinux and does it support basic Framebuffer Device? Hmm, if dfb can work under uClinux I see no problem. I used only dfb's methods. If your hardware is supported by DirectFB in most cases you will paint as fast as possible. For unsupported gfx operations dfb has its own software fallbacks. > And how is the memory consumption? I think the memory consumption is typical for any fltk implementations (except resources which were taken by DirectFB itself). _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
