Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU!mouse
From: mouse@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: WANTED: Faster X server for Sun4 w/GX
Message-ID: <9010011739.AA14827@Larry.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
Date: 1 Oct 90 17:39:21 GMT
Sender: root@athena.mit.edu (Wizard A. Root)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 40

>> Unfortunately R4 does not support the GX.  Until Sun will adapt Xsun
>> to there hardware (hopefully!) I use following little 'quick and
>> dirty' patch.

Sun has already done so; just run their "Open"Windows server.

(This is one of the problems I have with Sun: they don't document their
hardware.  Grrr.)

> Dirty is the word.  Putting pixrect calls in the cfb code?  Does this
> wreak havoc on other kinds of machines or displays?

Presumably it is correctly protected with preprocessor conditionals.  I
don't have the patch online at the moment, so I can't check whether it
was or not, but if it wasn't, at least complain about the proper thing!

> And what happens when the thing you're drawing on is not /dev/fb?

This is a more serious objection.  To do it properly a hook should be
put in to the ddx/sun code to pr_open() the correct device before
blitting with pr_rop().

> Though I'm sure your intentions are pure, I wish people wouldn't post
> this kind of garbage.

It's not garbage.  It's a useful, seriously nonportable[$], and
slightly dangerous[%] patch.

[%] Only slightly dangerous: what proportion of the Suns running X do
    you suppose have more than one framebuffer available?

[$] Many users are interested in performace and are willing to do
    almost anything to get it, including putting machine-dependent code
    into cfb.  As long as it degrades properly when on other machines,
    I have no problems with this.

					der Mouse

			old: mcgill-vision!mouse
			new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu