Hi Matthias, On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 09:26:57PM +0200, Matthias Franz wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 07:59:34PM +0200, Johannes Hofmann wrote:
000:<:c47f: 40: RENDERRequest(154): RenderCompositeGlyphs8 op=Over(0x03) src=0x01c0000f dst=0x01c00036 maskFormat=0x00000026 glyphset=0x01c00037 xSrc=0 ySrc=0 glyphcmds={deltax=5 deltay=554 glyphs=0x5a,0x4b,0x48,0x51; };
Hi Johannes,
two additonal observation:
1) I've had a look at the xtrace output of dillo1. It seems not to use the RENDER extension (apart from two requests
000:<:0029: 12: RENDERRequest(151): RenderQueryVersion majorVersion=0 minorVersion=10 000:<:002a: 4: RENDERRequest(151): RenderQueryPictFormats
at the beginning).
2) I've played around with 2D-acceleration and compared CPU load while scrolling. Result:
dillo1: XAA: excellent (almost no load), EXA: very bad (100%, delays) dillo2: XAA: bad (100%) EXA: slightly better (75%)
I've read that the EXA implementation of my Xorg server (7.1.1) is very bad, at least for my video driver (savage). On the other hand, RENDER support is said to be better in EXA than in XAA.
So could it be that it has to do with RENDER and that most of you have decent hadware acceleration for that?
Yes, I guess that's the reason. You can compile fltk with the --disable-xft flag. In this case you will get the artefacts you mentioned before, but the performance should be similar to dillo1. We should try to get rid of those artefacts for users that can't use xft. Cheers, Johannes