Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 20:58:44 -0300 From: "Carlos A. M. dos Santos" <unixmania@gmail.com> To: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> Cc: x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libxcb message - is it still relevant Message-ID: <AANLkTimGINDoWbxaf0QoEDya0L4GAQ1cxWk5yPCT2VH2@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik9QWWpfXamvkp6yQA8GhoyQ639G7Lcfdv2vOHA@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTik9QWWpfXamvkp6yQA8GhoyQ639G7Lcfdv2vOHA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> wrote: > As far as I could tell xcb is currently the default Xlib. Is the > following message that libXcb is experimental still true? > ***************************************************************** > Although libxcb can yield dramatic improvements in speed, > memory footprint, and responsiveness, and will probably > become the default Xlib for X.org/freedesktop.org, it is > still experimental software. =A0Some broken callers will abort() > on locking assertion failures. =A0As a temporary workaround, set > LIBXCB_ALLOW_SLOPPY_LOCK in your environment to skip the abort(). > This may result in noisy stacktrace printing. > ***************************************************************** No, but if the - informal - experiments I made are correct the claims about "dramatic improvements in speed" are an exaggeration. --=20 Not so young, but still crying out Full of anger full of doubt
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTimGINDoWbxaf0QoEDya0L4GAQ1cxWk5yPCT2VH2>