On Fri, 07 May 2010 15:21:57 -0400, Adam Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
> I suspect that'll be cleaner. I do like the idea of SetWindowPixmap, > it's just subtle, and seems out of scope for CRTC pixmaps. I feared the GL issues more, but perhaps it won't be nearly as bad. > What I was getting at was more like: If you SWP, unmap, and remap, do > you keep the same old storage? Ok, that is subtle. > That's not quite true, or at least, the illusion is not complete. If I > have an Automatic window, name its pixmap, and draw to the pixmap, > nothing will show up on screen until some side effect happens; the > damage listener is on the Window. Likewise most compositors listen for > damage on the Window, not the Pixmap. Nothing shows up in the root pixmap in this new case either; the fact that this pixmap may be a scanout pixmap mapped to a crtc is entirely separate. > More broadly, Damage doesn't know the two names are the same drawable. > It might make sense to have Damage always listen on the window pixmap > and translate coordinates if the listener was on a Window name. Actually, damage does, and drawing to the pixmap while listening for damage to the window should dtrt. -- [email protected]
pgpMvOeUrDxPf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
