On Sat, 2001-12-01 at 01:02, Claus-Justus Heine wrote:
> So it seems to work now. Textures do not work (do they work at all
> without HAL lib from Matrox? Found some comments in the mga driver
> which suggest they are not (yet) supported).
We're running a couple G450s in the office without halli
Claus-Justus Heine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Basically, it seems to work now -- in principle. Synchronization with
> the X-Server is flaky; maybe there is a mb() issue or something like
> that.
The deadlock was caused by debugging code inserted by myself (sending
output with printf() to an x
On Tue, 2001-11-27 at 04:06, Nicholas Leippe wrote:
> I've read that the most current DRI code is now
> in the XFree86 CVS. Is there any particular
> tag that is considered stable since 4.1.0 ?
No, the next stable branch will be for 4.2.
> Should I just get 4.1.0?
No need to use CVS for that,
On 30 Nov 2001, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> That might be the bug then; maybe it's using the width where it should
> use the pitch or vice versa.
Sounds more like the reverse - something's using the pitch where it should
be using the actual width.
> What still irritates me is that the pitch seems to
On Fri, 2001-11-30 at 17:46, Derrik Pates wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2001, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
> > horizontal resolution != line pitch
>
> This driver certainly seems to think it should be.
That might be the bug then; maybe it's using the width where it should
use the pitch or vice versa.
What sti
On 30 Nov 2001, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> horizontal resolution != line pitch
This driver certainly seems to think it should be.
> Probably not, still I suspect your change doesn't address the real
> problem. I think the problem is that the r128 driver doesn't use the
> same pitch as aty128fb. You
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Gareth Hughes wrote:
> 1) These pitches may have nothing to do with the current mode. Mode
>initialization probably touches different registers.
If this is the case, then something in the driver is assuming that line
width and the number of pixels per line should be equ
On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 09:17:07AM -0700, Derrik Pates wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Gareth Hughes wrote:
>
> > If I remember correctly, the hardware requires pitches to be multiples
> > of 64 (that's pixels, not bytes). It's been a while, but we don't do
> > that sort of thing for nothing...
>
On Fri, 2001-11-30 at 17:17, Derrik Pates wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Gareth Hughes wrote:
>
> > If I remember correctly, the hardware requires pitches to be multiples
> > of 64 (that's pixels, not bytes). It's been a while, but we don't do
> > that sort of thing for nothing...
>
> Well, how
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Gareth Hughes wrote:
> If I remember correctly, the hardware requires pitches to be multiples
> of 64 (that's pixels, not bytes). It's been a while, but we don't do
> that sort of thing for nothing...
Well, how would an 800x600 display work on it then? The iBook's display i
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Your numbers make me think that while your X server might be enabling
> DRI & AGP, for some reason, you are still using software rendering, that
> is probably because of a software only mesa library on your system.
'glxinfo' claimed that direc
On 29 Nov 2001, Alex de Landgraaf wrote:
> > However, some of the XScreenSaver GL
> > hacks, when they end, leave the mouse pointer in a weird state - as an
> > (approx.) 64x64 box, with what looks like ~24 lines inverting, ~24 lines
> > transparent, then ~8 lines inverting.
>
> Hmmz, is dit
Thats why its so weird! :)
On Thu, 2001-11-29 at 22:56, Derrik Pates wrote:
> Alex de Landgraaf wrote:
>
> > Ohwell, i've recieved register documentation from ATI, zo i'll see if i
> > can fix some code this weekend. Does anyone have the mach64 programming
> > guide, might help a bit :)
>
>
>
On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 01:48:16AM -0700, Derrik Pates wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2001, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
> > I'll see to it that it gets fixed, but I'd like to check the docs for
> > what the value should really be. I hope I'll get around to it this
> > weekend.
>
> Well, the tdfx driver uses 16 *
On Fri, 2001-11-30 at 13:06, dan wrote:
> Keith Whitwell wrote:
>
> >dan wrote:
> >
> >>Hi all. I'm trying to get the Mesa-4 branch to compile. If this isn't
> >>going to happen now, please excuse me - I will wait. But it's _so_ close...
> >>I downloaded the mesa_4_0_branch of Mesa and added it t
Hello,
I've run into what appears to be a dead-lock while running tessellation
demo by David Blythe which is included in the Glut-3.7 source
distribution (glut-3.7/progs/advanced/tes.c)
I've been able to reproduce the problem on two different Intel Pentium
III SMP machines (550, 850) both using
Keith Whitwell wrote:
>dan wrote:
>
>>Hi all. I'm trying to get the Mesa-4 branch to compile. If this isn't
>>going to happen now, please excuse me - I will wait. But it's _so_ close...
>>I downloaded the mesa_4_0_branch of Mesa and added it to my host.conf
>>'make world' seemed to go OK. At leas
dan wrote:
>
> Hi all. I'm trying to get the Mesa-4 branch to compile. If this isn't
> going to happen now, please excuse me - I will wait. But it's _so_ close...
> I downloaded the mesa_4_0_branch of Mesa and added it to my host.conf
> 'make world' seemed to go OK. At least it got to the end and
Hi all. I'm trying to get the Mesa-4 branch to compile. If this isn't
going to happen now, please excuse me - I will wait. But it's _so_ close...
I downloaded the mesa_4_0_branch of Mesa and added it to my host.conf
'make world' seemed to go OK. At least it got to the end and said 'build
complet
On Fri, 2001-11-30 at 10:30, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >Got me. I am trying a CVS build of XFree (4.1.99.1), and the framerate is
> >slightly better - glxgears gets generally closer to 200 fps, and TuxRacer
> >averages 8-9 fps (versus ~6 with 4.1.0.1 from Debian). It is using the
> >
> >AGPG
>Got me. I am trying a CVS build of XFree (4.1.99.1), and the framerate is
>slightly better - glxgears gets generally closer to 200 fps, and TuxRacer
>averages 8-9 fps (versus ~6 with 4.1.0.1 from Debian). It is using the
>
>AGPGART, and I even tried switching it to AGP 2x mode (the X server log
>
On Fri, 2001-11-30 at 09:48, Derrik Pates wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2001, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
> > I'll see to it that it gets fixed, but I'd like to check the docs for
> > what the value should really be. I hope I'll get around to it this
> > weekend.
>
> Well, the tdfx driver uses 16 * pScrn->bitsP
On 30 Nov 2001, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> I'll see to it that it gets fixed, but I'd like to check the docs for
> what the value should really be. I hope I'll get around to it this
> weekend.
Well, the tdfx driver uses 16 * pScrn->bitsPerPixel, and that's the value
I've been using. 64 * pScrn->bits
On Fri, 2001-11-30 at 08:19, Derrik Pates wrote:
> Also, can I get you to add a fix for the Rage128 line width problem into
> the ATI driver? I'd really like to see the fix added (it's one line,
> changing one value) before the current CVS HEAD becomes 4.2.0.
I'll see to it that it gets fixed, b
24 matches
Mail list logo
