On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 20:45:39 +0200, Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]> wrote:
> Could be overwritten fully, partially, or not at all, depending on > the operation and GC clipping, I suppose? If any part of it gets > overwritten it still seems better to copy from the child first, > otherwise the last rendering results can get overwritten by the > composite block handler. As I said, they'll get overwritten eventually, so it's only a matter of 'when', not 'if'. Given that we're not going to make this 'correct', we should probably just figure out what we actually want. > BTW isn't the current backing store implementation simply broken if > someone renders with IncludeInferiors to the parent? There's no copy > from the parent to the child's backing store. Yup. Frankly, the whole IncludeInferiors spec is too picky -- it should have been treated as 'best effort' instead of requiring drawing across boundaries when depths matched. Sigh. -- [email protected]
pgp4RbnLFeU0a.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
