On Fri, 12 May 2000, Kevin Puetz wrote:
> (I don't know what kind of licenses you are bound by, if no say no).
> Especially nice would be to rebuild Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'s
> debs from http://n.ethz.ch/student/daenzerm/download/XFree86/4.0/ with
> experimental mach64, but I'll ta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Especially nice would be to rebuild Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> z.ch>'s debs from http://n.ethz.ch/student/daenzerm/download/XFree86/
> 4.0/ with
sory, not debs - not sure why I said that. Just meant to tar it up in the same
structure. (well, debs would be co
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Actually, Xpmac is very slow compared to XFree 4.0. If you compare
> Xpmac vs. XFree86 4.0 r128 you'll find xfree 4.0 (with a couple of my
> patches in Jack Howarth's RPMS) are over 200% faster then Xpmac. As
> for mach64, a local build shows somewhat the same increase
> Is there a Debian potato compatible binary of Xpmac out there
> somewhere?
Well, on my PB3400, I first used Xpmac.rev10, which I got from Kevin
Hendricks site (http://khendricks.ivey.uwo.ca/rage128_usb/) (which is not
responding for me right at the moment) but acceleration on ct6555x is
broken
Wilhelm Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> > > Xpmac is so much faster than XF68_FBDev
> > Actually, Xpmac is very slow compared to XFree 4.0. If you compare
> > Xpmac vs. XFree86 4.0 r128...
>
> How does XFree86 4.0 on the ct6555x chipset (aka PB2400/3400) stack
> up against Xpmac?
Is there a Debian potat
On Fri, 12 May 2000, Wilhelm Fitzpatrick wrote:
> How does XFree86 4.0 on the ct6555x chipset (aka PB2400/3400) stack up
> against Xpmac?
I have no clue, as I don't own any chips hardware. Stock 4.0 won't work
on PPC, but as I said a few messages ago in this thread, I'll try and hack
in ppc s
> > Xpmac is so much faster than XF68_FBDev
> Actually, Xpmac is very slow compared to XFree 4.0. If you
> compare Xpmac vs. XFree86 4.0 r128...
How does XFree86 4.0 on the ct6555x chipset (aka PB2400/3400) stack up
against Xpmac?
-raf
On Fri, 12 May 2000, Kevin Puetz wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > No, everyone should *not* use 4.0 yet, at least those with Mach64
> > chipsets. the ATI driver in the stock 4.0 source does not work on
> > ppc, I have added PPC support and will get it into 4.01 if i get some
> > more fre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> No, everyone should *not* use 4.0 yet, at least those with Mach64
> chipsets. the ATI driver in the stock 4.0 source does not work on
> ppc, I have added PPC support and will get it into 4.01 if i get some
> more free time soon.
Xpmac is so much faster than XF68_FBDev
On Fri, May 12, 2000 at 03:14:45PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, 12 May 2000, Michel [iso-8859-1] Dänzer wrote:
> > Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > gcc-2.9.1.66 can no longer compile the latest kernels. Anybody who wants
> > > to
> > > create a deb for 2.95.2?
> >
> > ???
> >
> > I
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> >
> > Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > > Applied to clgenfb, with some slight updates. Should be in
> > > 2.3.99-pre7-pre9 or so..
> >
> > Thanks very much!
> >
> > Is there anything I can do to help fix clgenfb for MacPicasso? Any
> > printks I can stick
On Fri, May 12, 2000 at 09:37:22AM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
>
> Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
> > Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> >
> > > > >* atyfb still doesn't support Xfb with accels properly, same
> > > > > problems
> > > > > as 2.2.
> > > >
> > > > What are they? (Sorry if this is old ne
On Fri, May 12, 2000 at 03:14:45PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, 12 May 2000, Michel [iso-8859-1] Dänzer wrote:
> > Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > gcc-2.9.1.66 can no longer compile the latest kernels. Anybody who wants
> > > to
> > > create a deb for 2.95.2?
> >
> > ???
> >
> > I
On Fri, 12 May 2000, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> Really? I seem to be the only one having trouble with accel Xfb-atyfb in 3.3,
> and thought that the 4.0 fb backend does not yet have accel...
>
No, everyone should *not* use 4.0 yet, at least those with Mach64
chipsets. the ATI driver in the st
Michel Dänzer wrote:
> Adam C Powell IV wrote:
>
> > > >* atyfb still doesn't support Xfb with accels properly, same problems
> > > > as 2.2.
> > >
> > > What are they? (Sorry if this is old news :)
> >
> > (Sorry, I forgot only fbdev list members have seen this.) Minor problems,
> > suc
On Fri, 12 May 2000, Michel [iso-8859-1] Dänzer wrote:
> Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > gcc-2.9.1.66 can no longer compile the latest kernels. Anybody who wants to
> > create a deb for 2.95.2?
>
> ???
>
> I have installed the latest gcc, and it's 2.95.2-x .
Are you using potato? I'm using woody.
Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> gcc-2.9.1.66 can no longer compile the latest kernels. Anybody who wants to
> create a deb for 2.95.2?
???
I have installed the latest gcc, and it's 2.95.2-x .
Michel
--
Me? A skeptic? Can you prove it?
__
gcc-2.9.1.66 can no longer compile the latest kernels. Anybody who wants to
create a deb for 2.95.2?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven - Sony Software Development Center Europe (SDCE)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > >* atyfb still doesn't support Xfb with accels properly, same problems
> > > as 2.2.
> >
> > What are they? (Sorry if this is old news :)
>
> (Sorry, I forgot only fbdev list members have seen this.) Minor problems,
> such as: expose events don't lead to prop
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> I'm no expert, but I thought glibc2.1 was supposed to be backward
> compatible with glibc2.0. I have had problems when I have upgraded my
> compiler from from 2.7.2 to gcc-2.95.x. The compiler is so good that
> it optimizes out symbols that the old libraries expect to re
20 matches
Mail list logo
