about the exa patches
madman2003 at gmail.com
Thu Feb 5 08:17:01 PST 2009
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Maarten Maathuis <madman2003 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 00:29 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
>>> I hope the changes are coming to an end. I still need to know if there
>>> are any external users of fbDoCopy that would care for a wrapper. I'm
>>> assuming that functions that changed their return value from void to
>>> Bool pose no issue, but you're welcome to explain if it's not.
>>> @MrCooper: the approach of patch 8 and 9 is ok by you?
>> I definitely like the reuse of fbCopyRegion and fbDoCopy; the only minor
>> niggle I have there would be to replace EXA_WRAPPER with something more
>> generic like FB_WRAP_PREFIX, and then
>> #ifdef FB_WRAP_PREFIX
>> #define fbCopyRegion FB_WRAP_PREFIX##CopyRegion
>> #define fbDoCopy FB_WRAP_PREFIX##DoCopy
>> I'd like the fb changes to be reviewed by an fb hacker.
>> Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.vmware.com
>> Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer
> I sent a new version of patch 9 to the list, the macro turned out to
> be slightly more complex, i also made it a little more clear that the
> function names are variable.
> I don't know if there are any "fb" hackers, but i agree someone should
> judge the changes.
These 2 patches are a cleaner approach.
core glyphs before and after are within an error margin of 1%.
More information about the xorg