On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 11:16:32AM +0300, Tapani Pälli wrote: > Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 09:34:38AM +0200, ext Frantisek Dufka wrote: > > You mean, modify every single drawing X request in the X protocol so it > > contains flags, meaning that we have to change every drawing-related > > function in -- on average -- ten (at least) places in the server > > codebase, rendering us incompatible with the standard X server codebase, > > as well as the X protocol? > > > > Plus, the update is done long after the drawing information has been > > discarded. > > > > IOW, no. (Also, bear clips in mind, which complicates things.) > > Well more likely something like this would be implemented as a > additional flag in GC, right? But I think it would be nicer to just have > a special call for 2x-blitting, this would be more sense.
Sure, but the update is only done after the final screen pixmap has been retouched, by which time the GC is also long gone. > > Sure, but that's mainly because pixel-doubling is a non-portable hack > > (doesn't exist in other products, doesn't exist on desktops, may not > > necessarily exist in future products). It's not a hack because of how > > it's implemented, but just by its very nature. > > Hmm, I would not call a feature in HW a hack. It's just a feature of > particular hardware which can be utilized. The entire concept is a hack around games not running quickly enough in full resolution. Specifying that pixels must be exactly _doubled_ is a hack around both the performance issues and a lack of resolution independence. Apparently an important one, if you happen to like SDL games, but a hack nonetheless. Cheers, Daniel
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
