Adam Jackson <[email protected]> writes: > In case you were wondering how it performs: slightly worse, I think? Which > makes sense, if your pixels are smaller than your word size then you're > going to be spending time masking pixels together that you wouldn't if they > matched, and you're not really going to gain much write throughput since d$ > writeback will combine adjacencies anyway.
Yeah, that's not hard to believe, although of course the 64-bit paths should only be executed when writing more than one pixel at a time. 64 bits was a huge win for 16bpp screens when drawing the root weave; otherwise, it's really not very interesting. > Given that X11 fundamentally can't > cope with >32 bit pixels, it might make sense to just drop the 64-bit path > entirely. Having two paths is crazy; if 64 bits is actually slower even on 64 bit machines, we should just pitch it. The original fb goal was to only support 64 bit reads/writes, but that's just not practical given X image formats. -- [email protected]
pgppNLqWJR5TB.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
