From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs and Gnome Canvas Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:39:28 +0300 Message-ID: <83fwzjg17j.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4C3CD120.4040905@swipnet.se> <5A91499A-0470-43FD-9F48-560CEAD3424C@mit.edu> <83wrsyr068.fsf@gnu.org> <83iq4hhjww.fsf@gnu.org> <87sk3lbvv0.fsf@telefonica.net> <83hbk1grnq.fsf@gnu.org> <4C3EBCDC.8050709@swipnet.se> <83d3upgmwj.fsf@gnu.org> <4C3ECB4C.6050208@swipnet.se> <83aaptgly1.fsf@gnu.org> <4C3ED4F9.4080603@swipnet.se> <83630hgi0r.fsf@gnu.org> <4C3EE8D6.3020607@swipnet.se> <8339vlgcax.fsf@gnu.org> <87fwzkbzg8.fsf@telefonica.net> <877hkwag6y.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4C400B3C.4000203@swipnet.se> <83iq4fg3eb.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1279276980 30203 80.91.229.12 (16 Jul 2010 10:43:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:43:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, cyd@stupidchicken.com, jan.h.d@swipnet.se, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 16 12:42:55 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OZiNa-000787-Np for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:42:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42931 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OZiNa-0002iH-7m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 06:42:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35755 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OZiNV-0002hT-HJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 06:42:50 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OZiNT-0005Wi-Mw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 06:42:49 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:57050) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OZiNT-0005WT-9y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 06:42:47 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L5N00I00C7U2M00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:41:26 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.120.144]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L5N00DXMCCZHMB0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:41:25 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:127425 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 19:15:25 +0900 > From: YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu > Cc: Jan Dj=E4rv ,=09ofv@wanadoo.es, > =09cyd@stupidchicken.com,=09emacs-devel@gnu.org >=20 > >>>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:52:12 +0300, Eli Zaretskii said: >=20 > > Btw, I don't think I understand what Mitsuharu says in this Item = #2. > > Surely, we cannot "restrict the actual drawings to those in respo= nse > > to exposure events"? A completely exposed window does need to be > > redrawn if the buffer text changes, right? What am I missing? >=20 > The current code assumes that drawing is mainly done for updated ar= ea > during redisplay, and expose_window is rather subsidiary. So the > latter is not so optimized for frequent use. Is it really worth our while to optimize that? What would be the situation where we will get frequent expose events? > For example, it does not accept multiple rectangles for exposed are= a > that is necessary for minimal redrawing. Don't we get a single expose event for each exposed rectangular area? If we do, what would be the gain from processing multiple rectangles at once? > It also reuses functions primarily designed for drawing during > redisplay and that does not necessarily efficient for exposure > handing. Are you talking about draw_glyphs? If so, how is it biased in favor of redisplay, and what would be a more efficient way of drawing glyph= s in a specified area of the display than what draw_glyphs does?