Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU!rws
From: rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Optimisation? Verification? gcc vs. cc? Sparc shared libs, GX?
Message-ID: <9001061935.AA09432@expo.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 6 Jan 90 19:34:58 GMT
References: <55888@csvax1.cs.tcd.ie>
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 35


    how can you tell if you've built the system fully correctly?

Sorry, there's just no simple answer to that question.  If we had a
test suite for all of X, I'm sure we'd let you know about it. :-)

    I was a bit uneasy to find that I couldn't get xedit
    working (segmentation fault), while all other clients in the standard release
    *did* work. Does this indicate that some routine in some library has been
    made wrongly?

Something's wrong, but that's not enough information to know where the problem
is.  A stack trace would be useful, for example.  If you've built with
shared libraries, you may have to relink -Bstatic to get a meaningful trace,
if it's in a library routine.

    Is xperf what I need?

x11perf (if that's what you mean) really only exercises parts of the server.

    Has anyone (especially Sun) bitten the bullet and actually made shared
    versions of the libraries?

Yes, R4 has shared libraries, as does OpenWindows.  I believe AT&T also
ships shared libraries on their box, and I think Apollo does on theirs.

    Has anyone done performance tests between one of these and a Sparcstation1
    for graphics speed in general and X speed in particular?

For X, yes we have.  Perhaps I'll post a comparison, since you've asked.

    Sun's GX graphics accelerator board - can the
    standard X library take advantage of it?

The server in the MIT distribution does not take advantage of it.