On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 11:50:13PM -0600, Bill Currie wrote:
> I am attempting to trunk cvs dri with my g200 but I'm running into a problem
> with all gl apps that use textures (the demos that don't use textures (afaict)
> work just fine). It seems that the texture heap is not being initialized an
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 11:50:13PM -0600, Bill Currie wrote:
> I am attempting to trunk cvs dri with my g200 but I'm running into a problem
> with all gl apps that use textures (the demos that don't use textures (afaict)
> work just fine). It seems that the texture heap is not being initialized an
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 08:35:19AM -0700, Sottek, Matthew J wrote:
> Frank,
> The Intel graphics chips are integrated into the memory
> controller and therefore are not really "Agp" or "PCI".
> You could either just leave all the Intel chips as AGP, or
> list them as "Integrated Chipset", but th
Frank Worsley wrote:
>
> Ok, after thinking about this some more I guess there's no point in keeping
> the page going as it is, since it doesn't make much sense.
>
> I've made a generic listing of cards, check it out at
> http://dri.sourceforge.net/status2.phtml and if it's ok I will replace the
Ok, after thinking about this some more I guess there's no point in keeping
the page going as it is, since it doesn't make much sense.
I've made a generic listing of cards, check it out at
http://dri.sourceforge.net/status2.phtml and if it's ok I will replace the
current page.
- Frank
> Treading dangerous ground.
>
> I'd remove this page, and maybe put in Daryll's suggestion of letting
> people leave comments on whether it worked with their system.
>
> There are too many if's and but's that different systems introduce to
> speculate whether it matches your legend key table.
>
I'm using gcc-2.95 (2.95.4.ds1-0.010407), and I should have packages
compiled with a current CVS tomorrow, going to sleep now.
Zephaniah E. Hull.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 03:26:01PM +0200, Ard van Breemen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 11:47:14PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr
Allen Barnett wrote:
>
> Brian Paul wrote:
> >
> > Allen Barnett wrote:
> > >
> > > Is there a difference (performance or otherwise) between using indirect
> > > DRI rendering (say, with LIBGL_ALWAYS_INDIRECT) and just linking against
> > > the Mesa library?
> >
> > Yes. DRI libGL used in in ind
Brian Paul wrote:
>
> Allen Barnett wrote:
> >
> > Is there a difference (performance or otherwise) between using indirect
> > DRI rendering (say, with LIBGL_ALWAYS_INDIRECT) and just linking against
> > the Mesa library?
>
> Yes. DRI libGL used in in indirect mode sends GLX protocol messages
>
Frank,
The Intel graphics chips are integrated into the memory
controller and therefore are not really "Agp" or "PCI".
You could either just leave all the Intel chips as AGP, or
list them as "Integrated Chipset", but there is no PCI
version for these chips.
Also, Along the lines of Alan and Dar
Allen Barnett wrote:
>
> Is there a difference (performance or otherwise) between using indirect
> DRI rendering (say, with LIBGL_ALWAYS_INDIRECT) and just linking against
> the Mesa library?
Yes. DRI libGL used in in indirect mode sends GLX protocol messages
to the X server which are executed
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 11:47:14PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 05:08:20PM -0400, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> > Ouch, you're going to be annoyed that you missed this, but .debs are
> > already available[0], still a little rough. (I need to generate the
> > module source
Did you try the alternate head? What error did you get?
--buddy
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 05:40:47AM -0700, Nathan Matias wrote:
> This message was sent from Geocrawler.com by "Nathan Matias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I tried the Radeon drivers last night(the ones
> with the VE patch). Although I
Thanks and fixed.
Alan.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 08:26:17AM -0400, Allen Barnett wrote:
> Here are a couple of comments on the documentation at SourceForge:
>
> Section 5 of the 'DRI User's Guide' says that DRM kernel modules are
> stored in /lib/modules/2.4.x/kernel/driver/char/drm. 'driver' sh
Is there a difference (performance or otherwise) between using indirect
DRI rendering (say, with LIBGL_ALWAYS_INDIRECT) and just linking against
the Mesa library?
Thanks,
Allen
___
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/l
Here are a couple of comments on the documentation at SourceForge:
Section 5 of the 'DRI User's Guide' says that DRM kernel modules are
stored in /lib/modules/2.4.x/kernel/driver/char/drm. 'driver' should be
'drivers'.
Section 3 of the 'DRI Compilation Guide' mentions getting Glide3 from
linux.3
Alan Hourihane wrote:
>
> Using the compilefarm we now have PPC based DRI packages online.
>
> NOTE: I have absolutely no idea whether these work or not. Feedback is
> most definately welcome.
I've been wanting to report this for a long time but never came around to it.
With a self-built trunk
Using the compilefarm we now have PPC based DRI packages online.
NOTE: I have absolutely no idea whether these work or not. Feedback is
most definately welcome.
I expect to have Alpha Linux packages online too, within the week.
(Oh, and possibly FreeBSD x86 ones as well)
URL is as always - htt
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 01:59:50PM -0700, Frank Worsley wrote:
> I've updated the status page a little bit. Could the developers please take
> a look at it and let me know if the information is accurate. Especially the
> information about supported buses.
>
> Temporary page is at: http://dri.sour
19 matches
Mail list logo
