RE: DDraw Blt vs BltFast
Do you have even a tiny bit of information about these certain functions that you'd like to impart? Or is this an even higher level version of the I don't see why they don't... I'm really surprised to see this attitude. It's quite disappointing. Dick-head mode detected... aborting conversation. You should be surprised to see that attitude because you are completely misinterpreting what I have said. Just forget it. Harold
RE: DDraw Blt vs BltFast
-Original Message- From: Harold Hunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 4:46 AM To: cygx Subject: RE: DDraw Blt vs BltFast Ralf, Those are some very interesting results. I especially like the ones where Cygwin is 10 to 1000 times slower than Linux :) Oh well... I can't bitch anymore for fear of obligating myself to contribute to Cygwin proper. Lol! Seriously though, I'm quite excited by what Ralf has been working on, and the cygserver is in HEAD now, so cygwin 1.11 will have it, and Ralf's patches don't need to be against a development branch. Rob
RE: DDraw Blt vs BltFast
-Original Message- From: Corinna Vinschen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 5:06 AM To: Cygwin-Xfree Subject: Re: DDraw Blt vs BltFast On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 09:30:05AM +0100, Ralf Habacker wrote: I have done some analysing work with this and with the cygwin daemon (cygserver transport classes) there may be a way in the future to implement unix domain sockets with named pipes which speed up unix domain sockets up to 250 MB/s, as I have measured with a quick an dirty sample Fine. But how do you implement them on 9x/Me? Perhaps the same way I implemented FIFO's, but easier as the semantics seem less complex to me. Anyway, sure we don't need to have bot NT and 9x all at the same time... Rob
RE: DDraw Blt vs BltFast
-Original Message- From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DDraw Blt vs BltFast On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 06:06:16PM -0500, Harold Hunt wrote: Fine. But how do you implement them on 9x/Me? Perhaps the same way I implemented FIFO's, but easier as the semantics seem less complex to me. Anyway, sure we don't need to have bot NT and 9x all at the same time... Sounds logical to me. There is no reason to limit the performance on Windows NT/2000/XP just because there would need to be a seperate routine for Windows 95/98/Me. I'm glad it sounds logical. Cygwin already has lots of code that is NT specific, e.g., CYGWIN=ntsec. I agree. I got the impression from Corinna's email that what Ralf was suggesting needed a 9x equivalent to be seriously considered. I'm not 100% sure why I got that impression though Rob
Re: DDraw Blt vs BltFast
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 03:14:53PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: I'm glad it sounds logical. Cygwin already has lots of code that is NT specific, e.g., CYGWIN=ntsec. I agree. I got the impression from Corinna's email that what Ralf was suggesting needed a 9x equivalent to be seriously considered. I'm not 100% sure why I got that impression though Ok. The horse is starting to decompose. I'm not going to whack it anymore. This is all actually off-topic for this mailing list anyway. I assume that Suhaib and Harold are just being too polite to inform us of that fact. cgf
RE: need help
RTFM http://xfree86.cygwin.com/docs/cg/ Harold -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Narasimha Reddy K Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 2:23 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: need help Please send the build instructions of XFREE86 on windows. Regards, N Reddy DISCLAIMER: Information contained and transmitted by this E-MAIL is proprietary to MASCOT SYSTEMS LTD and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If this is a forwarded message, the content of this E-MAIL may not have been sent with the authority of the Company. If you are not the intended recipient, an agent of the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering the information to the named recipient, you are notified that any use, distribution, transmission, printing, copying or dissemination of this information in any way or in any manner is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete this mail notify us immediately at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Before opening attachments, please scan for viruses
Re: DDraw Blt vs BltFast
Do you have to ? You could allow more functional platform in the source tree to have this new functionality while leaving the DOS based Windows at the current support. Yes - this will complicat matters and will probably need some kind of abstraction layer in the source to 'hide' the difference for most developer, but the gain for the more advanced platforms is certainly worth it On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 09:30:05AM +0100, Ralf Habacker wrote: I have done some analysing work with this and with the cygwin daemon (cygserver transport classes) there may be a way in the future to implement unix domain sockets with named pipes which speed up unix domain sockets up to 250 MB/s, as I have measured with a quick an dirty sample Fine. But how do you implement them on 9x/Me? Corinna Med venlig hilsen / Regards Franz Wolfhagen
