Subject: Re: 3.0/cats X server on 3.0/shark
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Robert Swindells <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/25/2006 00:49:05
>On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 12:04:30PM +0100, Robert Swindells wrote:
>> I think KDrive/TinyX is worth having anyway.
>I know next to nothing about it (and thought it was abandoned anyway) -
>can you explain why you think it would be worth to have?
I have used it and written a MediaQ MQ200 driver for it, but just know
the arguments Keith Packard gave for why he wrote it.
The design of cfb and mfb was optimized for fairly slow CPUs without
large caches. Compile time copies of drawing functions are created for
each of the possible raster ops which increases the code size.
For KDrive/TinyX, cfb and mfb are replaced by fb, which has conditional
An arm binary is around 700K compared with Xhpc at 1.8M.