Re: do we really need xrdb?
- From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo colitti com>
- To: James Henstridge <james jamesh id au>
- Cc: Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>, Ross Burton <ross burtonini com>, desktop-devel-list gnome org, Federico Mena Quintero <federico ximian com>
- Subject: Re: do we really need xrdb?
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:47:50 +0100
James Henstridge wrote:
The question was: if gcc has already been paged in (e.g. by a prior xrdb
call), does this change provide any noticeable benefit?
No, it doesn't.
The previous discussions seemed to indicate that the largest performance
wins would come from not paging gcc in at all, which will only happen if
either (a) all xrdb calls use -nocpp or (b) xrdb uses a different C
preprocessor.
That's right. xrdb is already called by the X session startup scripts,
and that's where you take the startup time penalty (because you have to
page in cpp). So even if you removed xrdb completely from GNOME startup,
you wouldn't gain anything.
The right approach is to tell xrdb to use a lightweight cpp, such as
mcpp or tcpp (although I don't know if tcc has an option to preprocess
only without compiling).
There is a patch in freedesktop.org bug 4325 to use other preprocessors
by default if they're available at runtime, but the only feedback I got
on that was that xrdb should detect the preprocessor at compile time
instead of at runtime, which seems worse to me since if you then
uninstall that processor your xrdb breaks completely.
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4325
Any suggestions?
Cheers,
Lorenzo
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]