On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 at 17:36:49 +0200, Johann Haarhoff wrote: > > > > Removing wrlib will be very disrupting to wmaker stability, but > > > the end goal seems worth pursuing. And we'll keep the stable > > > >could someone give me a quick rundown as to why it is beneficial? i'm > >not looking to hear "because it renders fractal gradients 5.128% > >faster", but why _really_ :) > > For me the main advantage is the built-in support for XRender (and > by extension hardware acceleration). So instead of having to tweak > MMX/assembly in wrlib you get the performance for free in hardware.
I am sorry for not looking deeply right now, but is that MMX/assembly stuff being used at all? I have a modern laptop and all that, and this is what I get in the end of configure Use assembly routines for wrlib : no Use inline MMX(tm) x86 assembly : no So at least in my case there is no tweak at all. Oh, and now I see this in configure.ac: # until we fix it, leave it disabled asm_support=no mmx_support=no And once I used 'perf' to make some performance profiles of wmaker, and by far most of the time was consumed by wrlib stuff. > That being said, it might be more effort than it is worth, so please > make the case for sticking with wrlib as well. For me the idea of getting rid of wrlib and using cairo seems nice because I think having a graphics library exclusively for wmaker has smaller chances of getting better/cleaner/faster than using one which is actively developed. If we can pass the responsibility for the graphics stuff to cairo instead of nurturing our own library (which probably a _lot_ less people review or will be able to fix bugs), I think it is worth. But I guess it will be a huge effort to get rid of wrlib. -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
