Re: [AD] exupdate (was: Re: CVS: allegro/demo demo.c,1.23,1.24)

[Evert Glebbeek <eglebbk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Aren't those still valid in DOS though (yeah, I know, as if...)?
> What about the attched patch instead?

I'm too pedantic.
I'm going to apply the following patch (a slight modification of Chris' 
original one).

Evert

diff -u -r1.9 exupdate.c
--- allegro/examples/exupdate.c	11 Jul 2004 16:40:37 -0000	1.9
+++ allegro/examples/exupdate.c	13 Jul 2004 17:42:12 -0000
@@ -169,12 +169,11 @@
 		      "    + avoids the need for a memory to screen blit of the 
completed image\n"
 		      "    + can use hardware acceleration when it is available\n"
 		      "    - drawing directly to vram can be slower than using a memory 
bitmap\n"
-		      "    - requires a card with enough video memory for two screen 
pages\n"
-		      "    - some VESA drivers have nasty bugs in the scrolling 
functions\n\n"
+		      "    - requires a card with enough video memory for two screen 
pages\n\n"
 		      "3 = triple buffered (three pages of video memory)\n\n"
 		      "    + like page flipping, but faster and smoother\n"
 		      "    - requires a card with enough video memory for three screen 
pages\n"
-		      "    - only possible in mode-X (not win95), or with VBE 3.0 or 
VBE/AF\n\n"
+		      "    - only possible with some graphics drivers\n\n"
 		      "4 = double buffered (system bitmap)\n\n"
 		      "    + as easy as normal double buffering\n"
 		      "    + system bitmaps can be hardware accelerated on some 
platforms\n"