Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 19:02:30 +0100 From: Pierre.Beyssac@hsc.fr (Pierre Beyssac) To: dawes@rf900.physics.usyd.edu.au (David Dawes) Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Acrobat problems? Message-ID: <19971119190230.YE53218@mars.hsc.fr> In-Reply-To: <19971120010935.32146@rf900.physics.usyd.edu.au>; from David Dawes on Nov 20, 1997 01:09:35 %2B1100 References: <199711170737.BAA03677@zuhause.mn.org> <199711181756.JAA05389@user2.teleport.com> <19971120010935.32146@rf900.physics.usyd.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
According to David Dawes:
> The current 24bpp implementation in XFree86 is quite different from most
> others in that it uses a depth 24 pixmap format with bits-per-pixel also
> 24 (most others -- including Xig's X server -- have bits-per-pixel 32
> for their depth 24 pixmap format). Checking the output of xdpyinfo will
I recently had similar problems when playing with shared pixmaps and
gathered a few xdpyinfos from friends, and consistently got 32
bits-per-pixel on 24 bits depths with XFree (they all got Matrox
cards however I believe, so take this with a grain of salt) :
vendor string: The XFree86 Project, Inc
vendor release number: 3310
supported pixmap formats:
depth 1, bits_per_pixel 1, scanline_pad 32
depth 24, bits_per_pixel 32, scanline_pad 32
This one was under FreeBSD, I got others under Linux with the same
results.
I don't know much about XFree internals, maybe it might depend on
differences between the S3 server and others?
> Doing what the XFree86 servers currently do in this regard is quite
> valid from an X11 point of view, but many clients cannot cope with it.
I agree. Many clients were written when 8 bits or monochrome displays
were the norm and were never tested on 16, 24 or 32 bits displays.
The more general implementation of this stuff I have seen so far is
the libxpm.
--
Pierre.Beyssac@hsc.fr
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971119190230.YE53218>