On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Jesper Tiberg 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
> are going to be support for this in X?
As others have mentioned, a couple of drivers have a rota
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Alexander Pohoyda wrote:
>Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:39:38 +0200 (CEST)
>From: Alexander Pohoyda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>Subject: a small twm/Imakefile patch
>
>Does not really deserves a
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Alexander Stohr wrote:
>> From: Mike A. Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> I plan on replacing the Cards database in Red Hat Linux with a
>> new mechanism sometime in the future which will be much more
>> flexible, allow per architecture overrides, allow the config tool
>> to
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 ker
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) why
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, Egbert
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 window
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 explanat
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
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 t
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
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]
h
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.
Egbert
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, so
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
- 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, 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%.
>
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 ==
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
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
rig
20 matches
Mail list logo
