2008/11/18 The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:raster@rasterman.com">raster@rasterman.com</a>></span><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
[...]<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
</div>evas supports opengl too. no it doesn't have an advantage, as glamo won't be<br>
doing opengl at VGA (the resolution of the device) so you won't be doing it for<br>
normal 2D UI's (thus my comments of it being of limited use for some fullscreen<br>
games for example where you drop to QVGA for the game). also the 256x256 max<br>
texture size leads to problems even if it could do VGA output.</blockquote><div><br>Oh this is a definitive limit, I would appreciate 3d acceleration to speedup everyday apps, and not some small 3d games, this is secondary for the freerunner actually.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">> *) when necessary you can use directly Xlib because X is 2d accelerated ?<br><div class="Ih2E3d">
<br>
</div>you ALWAYS use xlib* - if you want to interact with x in any way.</blockquote><div><br>I mean, if my preferred toolkit does not advantages of hardware acceleration, I may use Xlib and call for example XCopyArea to do fast blits in video memory?<br>
I wrote a small code snippet to test XCopyArea performance, and it seems to do about 25fps smoothscrolling but at the cost of XGlamo using 70/80% of CPU. This seems very strange, it maybe my code is wrong (I repeat I'm not an expert :) ), or XCopyArea is not full accelerated, or Xglamo has to be optimized, or that the Glamo GPU is simply slow :)<br>
</div></div><br>Regards<br><br> Nicola<br>