>
> Why not use depth 16?
>
> AFAIK depth 16 is a 2 bytes not much difference from 15 (almost 2 bytes)
> what makes it worth over depth 16?
In memory if you want to write bits that don't fit nice on a byte, you
have to,
y = 10101b; /* or however you specify 5 bits you want to go at the
begining o
On # Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:34:45 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>Yikes, a brief look at xvfb-run reveals syntax errors in it.
>
>I'll fix it up for 4.2.1-0pre1v2; let me know if that one works
>better.
Feel free to send me an email of an updated xvfb-run, since it is
small and easy to send. No need t
On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 11:57:27AM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>
> http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~jch/software/files/analyse-x.pl
>
Why not use depth 16?
AFAIK depth 16 is a 2 bytes not much difference from 15 (almost 2 bytes)
what makes it worth over depth 16?
--
Carlos Barros.
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 05:25:23PM -0500, Bryan W. Headley wrote:
It's there, it just doesn't nag you every time.
Groovy. It zaps my XF86Config whenever it feels like not nagging me. I
feel special, for unknown reasons...
The "zapping" is extensively documented.
http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~jch/software/files/analyse-x.pl
On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 11:19:23AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> I have a problem with recent Xfree86-4.2.0 and .1 pre debs (IMHO since
> 0-0pre1v3 or so). After few hours of intensive working, Xfree needs more
> and more memory even after closing (or killing) every X application, it
> keeps lots of
#include
I have a problem with recent Xfree86-4.2.0 and .1 pre debs (IMHO since
0-0pre1v3 or so). After few hours of intensive working, Xfree needs more
and more memory even after closing (or killing) every X application, it
keeps lots of memory.
5778 root 9 -10 276M 7992 7680 S < 0.5
7 matches
Mail list logo
