On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Maarten Maathuis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Michel Dänzer <[email protected]> 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 >> #endif >> >> >> 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. > > Maarten. >
These 2 patches are a cleaner approach. core glyphs before and after are within an error margin of 1%. Maarten. _______________________________________________ xorg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
