On 07/18/12 04:39, Jayaram wrote:
>> DQo+IEnigJltIHJ1bm5pbmcgdGhlc2Ugb24gYW4gYXJtIHRhcmdldC4gVGhlIGRlbGF5IGFtIHNl
>> ZWluZyBpcyBpbiBnZW5lcmFsIHdpdGgNCj4gcmVuZGVyaW5nIHdpbmRvd3MgYW5kIHRleHQuDQo+
>> IEkgdXNlZCBGTFRLIDEuMS43IHdpdGggdGhlIGxhdGVzdCBOYW5vLVggYW5kIE54bGliIGFuZCBm
>> [..]
>
> Hi Ian ,
> This message is not readable. Can you post this message again
I can read Ian's message via the NNTP interface to the group,
so I'm posting a copy as clear text below.
Indeed, his message looks entirely like encrypted text if I hit
'View Source'; it appears that message is in Microsoft's TNEF format,
which many interfaces to the group probably can't decode properly.
Another message he wrote 10 minutes earlier was clear text, so it
appears to be something his MS mail reader is doing specific with
that one message.
Anyway, here's what he wrote in reply to your msg:
* * *
> I’m running these on an arm target. The delay am seeing is in general with
> rendering windows and text.
> I used FLTK 1.1.7 with the latest Nano-X and Nxlib and found the
> performance to be the same as when I was using FLTK1.1.7 + Nano-X0.92 +
> Nxlib 0.45.
> This would eliminate Nano-X and Nxlib as being the problem area wouldn’t
> it ?
I'm not sure it does - though also see Micha's post (and my response) about
the behaviour of the IM system, and fltk's interaction with it, in the
1.3.x series.
WHat he proposes may be a credible workaround for you, if that is the problem.
I'm assuming that in your embedded target the IM probably is not useful to you?
But then, you may be entering complex scripted languages, so maybe you do need
the IM to work?
> But with FLTK 1.3.0 and latest Nano-X, Nxlib delay seems to be
> considerable especially in windows where a sizeable amount of utf-8 text
> need to be rendered.
If it depends on the amount of text to be rendered, it maybe NOT the IM problem
then...
This really sounds more like a rendering issue perhaps? Do you have any metrics
for
how "fast" your Nano-x system is rendering text?
Can you run a kdrive-style X server on your target for comparison and see how
that compares to Nano-x for performance?
> I have disabled xft and don’t have any problem displaying utf-8 characters
> except the delay issue am seeing.
> Would enabling Xft and using a ttf font make any difference ?
I doubt that XFT with a TTF font would render faster than a simple Xlib
bitmap font, though I may well be wrong.
I much prefer XFT, but because it looks better, not because it is faster!
There is a fair bit of logic in fltk to try and cope with unicode text in
a "simple" Xlib context so there shouldn't be any need to use XFT to get
unicode fonts rendered.
SELEX Galileo Ltd
Registered Office: Sigma House, Christopher Martin Road, Basildon, Essex SS14
3EL
A company registered in England & Wales. Company no. 02426132
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************
* * *
_______________________________________________
fltk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
