<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - drawing performance worse than X"
href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=763350#c54">Comment # 54</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - drawing performance worse than X"
href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=763350">bug 763350</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a href="page.cgi?id=describeuser.html&login=christian%40hergert.me" title="Christian Hergert <christian@hergert.me>"> <span class="fn">Christian Hergert</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to Ray Strode [halfline] from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=763350#c47">comment #47</a>)
<span class="quote">> > It still requires investigation to determine why this patch for cogl and the
> > mutter patch cause frame timings to be invalid. But, figured I'd update this
> > for future reference.
>
> maybe CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW versus CLOCK_MONOTONIC ? why doesn't it just use
> g_get_monotonic_clock instead of calling clock_gettime directly btw?</span >
I played with this about 20 different ways. Every clock type, fudging values,
etc etc.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>