Michel Dänzer <[email protected]> writes: > Right, but I'm questioning if any gains from that vs using and possibly > tweaking the current damage code (what would the expected gains be?) are > enough to justify the churn.
The current stack has gotten pretty unwieldy in the normal case, being largely unchanged since 1990 when I added the whole 'wrapping' notion. I think we'll see some nice simplifications of code and reductions in the overhead for small operations. Now seems like a pretty good time to revisit the 2D rendering interfaces; we're down to a small handful of implementations that matter, and we've already identified several places where the current interface doesn't match what those implementations really want. > Not really, at least not as currently implemented: > DamageReportBoundingBox only reports new damage when the extents change, > but it still records the fully accurate damage region, which can incur > significant overhead as the region grows rects. Right. One wonders whether tracking just the damage bounds might not be a whole lot better idea in all cases. -- -keith
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
