On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Jeff Hartmann wrote:
> This is just a hunch but I'm wondering if this could be a > previously undetected problem in the XFree86 memory manager. I want you > people who can reproduce the problem to try the above patch and tell me > if it works. I unfortunately no longer have access to an i810 or i815 > (or i830 or i845 for that matter.) So I can't test this to see if it > works. If it does there is a problem with the memory manager using the > leftover bit of memory on the side of the screen. Its probably very > rare to hit the path and probably just a small calculation thats off > somewhere. If this patch works it gives you a good data point at any > rate, one thing which is not causing the problem. Thanks for the patch - I'll give it a shot and let you know the result. I'm going to try to find a reliable way to reproduce the corruption tomorrow. > You might also try building the i810 driver with the #define > XF86DRI not defined because that will make the pitch and the width > always be the same. That will give you an additional data point to help > you track down the problem. I believe it's already been determined this gets rid of the problem - I haven't tried this myself, yet, but according to the past email threads the bug isn't present at 1024x768 where width == pitch. Just to make sure I'm understanding the concepts of pitch & width correctly: framebuffer width - number of bytes in memory that map to one scanline as displayed on the screen pitch - byte offset in memory between scanlines Why does removing the XF86DRI define ensure they're always equal? And for what reasons will they be different (I'm assuming maybe some sort of alignment comes into play here?)? Bill _______________________________________________ Xpert mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xpert
