Maarten Maathuis <[email protected]> writes: > Have you benchmarked this? I know it wasn't fast, but if it becomes > even (significantly) slower that's not very nice. I'm not near a > system where i can test this for the forseeable future.
I don't buy the performance argument. We are talking about software compositing of data in video memory by the slow path in pixman where both reads and writes are done with two indirect function calls per pixel. The new scheme uses the accessor functions to move the data to host memory, then running whatever fast paths are available, then copying back to video memory. I would guess that the new scheme is faster, but I don't really care if it isn't. The best you can hope for is "unusable, but benchmarks show this is faster" vs. "unusable". Soren _______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
