> 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. >
With respect to performance am seeing this behavior (not quite sure how i can explain this behavior). So am using FLTK+Nano-X+Nxlib on an Arm target with a touch screen dislay. On the press of a button on the touch screen i populate some random text in a FL_Box. I pres the button and take my hands away from the screen there is a delay for the information box to appear and the text to be displayed. But after pressing the button, if i keep it pressed on the touch screen, the box appears a lot quicker and text is displayed. Am unable to understand the reason for this behavior !!
_______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
