|
|
On Friday 21 March 2008 01:49, Greg Ercolano wrote:
> Andrea Scopece wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > the following fragment of code, show very different performance (and
> > responsivity) between 1.1.7 and 1.1.8rc3 (and also a lot of recent 1.1.x
> > releases).
> > [..]
> > I' don't see evidence of difference using single buffered Window,
> > but performance using Fl_Double_Window is severely worst using
> > 1.1.x/1.1.8.
>
> Interesting demo.
>
> For me on fedora3, I found both to run the exact same speed
> (side by side) on 1.1.x-svn vs 1.1.7 -- both were very slow,
> taking about 4 minutes to open the blue pie slice 90 degrees.
>
> I did notice that if I obscured one with one of my other windows,
> it would then run quite rapidly while obscured, and would slow
> down again when revealed.
>
> So be sure when you do your test both windows are open and not
> obscured when testing.
I have investigated a little:
1) the described performance difference are visible only enabling Xdbe
and therefore related to Xdbe itself or Xdbe related code
(i.e. configure --enable-xdbe AND xorg.conf: Load "dbe").
2) Disabling Xdbe, either by configure cmd or not loading "dbe" in xorg.conf,
1.1.8 performance appear to be much better, and appear to be the same with
1.1.7. (?)
I' am a bit confused, my results, compared to Greg's results may show that
Xdbe on my system is broken, at same time, in this case, I cannot explain
why 1.1.8 and 1.1.7 show different performance.
this is a partial log of my Xorg.0.log, that should confirm the availability
of Xdbe
------------ snip --------------
(II) LoadModule: "dbe"
(II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/extensions//libdbe.so
(II) Module dbe: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
compiled for 7.1.99.902, module version = 1.0.0
Module class: X.Org Server Extension
ABI class: X.Org Server Extension, version 0.3
(II) Loading extension DOUBLE-BUFFER
------------ snip --------------
also the following test (copied from doblebuffer.cxx example),
-----------
if (!Fl::visual(FL_DOUBLE))
printf("Xdbe not supported, faking double buffer with pixmaps.\n");
---------
doesn't complain about unsupported Xdbe, than I suppose Xdbe on my system
exist and is ok.
Greg,
please, could you tell us if your test were conducted with or without Xdbe
support ?
anyone know how investigate further ?
Thanks
Andrea
[ Direct Link to Message ] | |
|
| |