[Development] QT_XCB_NATIVE_PAINTING makes worse that without of it

Denis Shienkov denis.shienkov at gmail.com
Sun Mar 24 09:36:48 CET 2019


Allan,

 > And typically using the OpenGL backed will be even faster unless you 
need to run X11 remotely.

Do you mean that OpenGL via EGLFS, without of X11 is faster? For QtWidgets?

24.03.2019 1:09, Allan Sandfeld Jensen пишет:
> On Samstag, 23. März 2019 19:00:47 CET Uwe Rathmann wrote:
>> Ön Fri, 22 Mar 2019 17:06:32 +0100, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
>>> Sounds like XCB isn't as well optimized as Qt is
>> Nice joke - but only when X11 falls back on some software emulation it
>> might be the case, that the Qt implementation is better than that one.
>>
> Software implementation is the default for X11 painting, with accelerated
> paths being addons. Most rendering is done by a software library called
> pixman. A few parts are accelerated but not much. But yes, if you do scaling
> of images a lot, it is hardware accelerated, and can be faster than Qt raster
> if you manage your QPixmaps well.
>
> But for most applications Qt raster engine is faster. Making full use of the
> native X11 engine is a more delicate process. And typically using the OpenGL
> backed will be even faster unless you need to run X11 remotely.
>
> 'Allan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20190324/7d781118/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Development mailing list