[Xcb] Re: To XCB or not to XCB ...

Daniel Stone daniel at fooishbar.org
Tue Aug 29 13:06:48 PDT 2006

On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 12:23:43PM -0700, Jamey Sharp wrote:
> Embedded and consumer devices are key targets for not linking libX11 any
> more, though. By switching to XCB an embedded developer frees up
> probably 700kB of storage.

FWIW, consumer devices don't care about 700kB of storage space, really,
especially given that you can disable CMS and most of the i18n stuff.
What turns out to be really important is memory footprint, be it overall
footprint, or even one library with 20kB of private non-shareable data.

(And if you're shipping GTK or Qt, you provably don't care about the
 on-disk size of libX11.)

> So I don't want to hear more abstract criticism until you really have
> something to complain about -- and at that point, we'll do our best to
> fix whatever issue you find.

My only solid criticism at this point, is that it's _still_ enabled by
default in libX11.  Surely it's well beyond time to release or revert.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xcb/attachments/20060829/a7d9d393/attachment.pgp

More information about the Xcb mailing list