May be this question is not strictly suited to this list, but I see lots of
people contributing from lots of different platforms.
The question regards to stack space management under different platforms, or
execution models.
Under my preferred platform ( QNX 4.25 ) stack space is allocated at
mnicolet wrote (in a message from Tuesday 8)
May be this question is not strictly suited to this list, but I see lots of
people contributing from lots of different platforms.
The question regards to stack space management under different platforms, or
execution models.
Under my preferred
Bugzilla #434 shows a x11perf regression test between 4.3.0 and a rather
current CVS versions. The performance of some tests has gone down by
20% for a specific test, some other tests have suffered a performance
penalty of 3%.
There may be a simple explanation for this however I can't find it
Juliusz Chroboczek writes:
I'm currently in the process of changing somewhat the core bitmaps
fonts system in order to simplify it and extend its functionality.
Because the planned changes will break some users' configurations[1],
David suggested that the core server should include
This is a matter that maybe should also be discussed on 'forum'.
I don't know how to initiate a joint discussion on both lists.
There is a comment on Roland Mainz's changes to make BIGREQUEST size
tunable.
Further comments are welcome.
Egbert.
=== comment by Juliusz Chroboczek
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 10:25:40AM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
Bugzilla #434 shows a x11perf regression test between 4.3.0 and a rather
current CVS versions. The performance of some tests has gone down by
20% for a specific test, some other tests have suffered a performance
penalty of 3%.
There
- Original Message -
From: Matthieu Herrb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 3:52 AM
Subject: Re: stack size
mnicolet wrote (in a message from Tuesday 8)
May be this question is not strictly suited to this list, but I see
lots of
people
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:13:06 -0300, mnicolet wrote:
Thank you.
You answered me what I was expecting: no system allows for a true or full
dynamic stack size.
If that's your interpretation, then I'm not sure what you mean by a full
dynamic stack size. All the operating systems he mentioned
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:46:30 +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 10:25:40AM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
Bugzilla #434 shows a x11perf regression test between 4.3.0 and a rather
current CVS versions. The performance of some tests has gone down by
20% for a specific test, some
I'd ask this on devel, but I'm certain I won't get an answer
(at least not by anyone but you guys):
Who would be an Xaw expert? Bugzilla #482 describes a situation
(rather unlikely one) where Xaw causes a segfault.
I've tracked it down however I'm not sure what would be the
best solution.
Hello!
I just bought a ViewSonic TFT-monitor (VP171b) with the pivot function
the ability to flip the display 90 degrees) and I wonder if there is or
are going to be support for this in X?
best regards Jesper
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
some drivers offer a rotate option, however there is no HW acceleration
when this is used.
Alex
--- Jesper Tiberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello!
I just bought a ViewSonic TFT-monitor (VP171b) with the pivot
function
the ability to flip the display 90 degrees) and I wonder if there is
or
Thank you. You pointed me back to documentation.
QNX 4.x does not page to disk. A philosophical question for a RTOS.
The only available memory is RAM. That´s why I care about everything.
But it offers two main process image layouts.
One that ´sandwiches´ the stack between the BSS and the heap, so
On 2003.07.08 06:46, Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 10:25:40AM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
Bugzilla #434 shows a x11perf regression test between 4.3.0 and a
rather
current CVS versions. The performance of some tests has gone down by
20% for a specific test, some other tests have
On 2003.07.08 04:25, Egbert Eich wrote:
Bugzilla #434 shows a x11perf regression test between 4.3.0 and a
rather
current CVS versions. The performance of some tests has gone down by
20% for a specific test, some other tests have suffered a performance
penalty of 3%.
There may be a simple
Oh sorry for the bad format of the post, bad numbers are in attachment.
Bye
Manu109000.086300.0 ( 0.79) Fill 1x1 aa trapezoid
45300.040400.0 ( 0.89) Fill 10x10 aa trapezoid
30300.025100.0 ( 0.83) 10-pixel wide partial circle
472000.0 403000.0 ( 0.85) Destroy
Looks like a code generation issue. P4's will do that sometimes
when you change the alignment of particular functions/structures.
The graphics driver probably has nothing to do with it since the
worst regressions don't involve graphics.
Mark.
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003,
Tim Roberts wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:13:06 -0300, mnicolet wrote:
So, my true question comes into scene.
The people who ported XFree86 to QNX 4.x setted the stack size hint to the
Watcom linker to 4 Mb ( yes, 4 Mb ) for the server.
I am wondering why a so high figure.
I am wondering (1)
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:40:39 -0500, Dan Nelson wrote:
Threaded applications on x86 usually have much smaller default stack
limits, averaging 64-128k, because all threads must share the same
address space, and a 4MB stack gives you a theoretical limit of only
1024 threads (assuming your kernel
19 matches
Mail list logo
