[Xcb] [RFC PATCH] New XCB socket handoff mechanism for Xlib/XCB and other libraries
jamey at minilop.net
Tue Mar 18 11:05:30 PDT 2008
Thanks for the testing and feedback, James!
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 02:38:36PM -0400, James Cloos wrote:
> I believe -- but haven't tested yet -- it will be sufficient to remove
> the references to /usr/lib/libxcb-xlib.la from any .la files which
> contain it, right after upgrading to xcb and xlib with these patches.
I knew that removal could cause upgrade issues, but I didn't expect
libtool issues. (Analogies with the Spanish Inquisition may be apt.)
Given what Josh tells me about this, it sounds like you have one of the
versions of libtool that's broken in how it handles library dependencies
on systems with reasonable linkers. On a system with GNU ld, for
example, there's no reason to include recursive library dependencies in
In fact, as far as I understand, with a sensible linker there's no
reason for .la files at all, and you can solve this problem by simply
removing them all. :-)
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 09:00:57AM -0400, James Cloos wrote:
> I’m running with this now, and it seems to work well.
> When I first started X after recompiling libxcb and libX11 I noticed
> considerable temporal ‘graininess’.
I don't know any way to explain that, except that responsiveness drops
for any app when CPU load is high. :-) If you experience further
problems that don't also show up with a non-XCB Xlib, do let us know.
> The X process has used 2½% of the cpu since it started; that is a bit
> less than it had been using of late.
I don't have any reason to believe that the new Xlib/XCB would have much
impact on X server load, but it would be a nice bonus if it does. :-)
> I’ve incorporated the patches to the libxcb and libX11 ebuilds in the
> overlay at:
That's awesome! Once again, Gentoo users are our best testers. :-)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the xorg