<html> <head> <base href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <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#c47">Comment # 47</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 <a href="page.cgi?id=describeuser.html&login=rstrode%40redhat.com" title="Ray Strode [halfline] <rstrode@redhat.com>"> Ray Strode [halfline]</a> <pre>(In reply to Christian Hergert from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=763350#c42">comment #42</a>) > Created <a href="attachment.cgi?id=324158&action=diff" name="attach_324158" title="updated cogl patch for clock discovery">attachment 324158</a> <a href="attachment.cgi?id=324158&action=edit" title="updated cogl patch for clock discovery">[details]</a> <a href='review?bug=763350&attachment=324158'>[review]</a> [review] > updated cogl patch for clock discovery > > 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?</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>