[Dri-devel] mach64-0-0-3-branch compiles, runs (and segfaults)

2002-02-28 Thread Leif Delgass
I've commited the last major chunk of the Mesa 4 merge, mainly in mach64_tris.c. The branch should now compile and run, but it needs debugging, as glxgears is still segfaulting. glxinfo reports: display: :0.0 screen:0 direct rendering: Yes server glx vendor string: SGI server glx version str

[Dri-devel] Re: Mach64 work update

2002-02-28 Thread José Fonseca
Leif, I just finished _vb.c. It compiles with just a warning of a missing defintion. Do you prefer I commit or do you want to take a look first? Are you still working on this? Have you some spare minutes for IRC? Regards, José Fonseca On 2002.02.28 23:38 Leif Delgass wrote: > On Thu, 28 Feb

[Dri-devel] Re: Mach64 work update

2002-02-28 Thread Leif Delgass
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, José Fonseca wrote: > Leif, > > I've finished the work on the the mach64_* files except for the > *_{tris,vb} ones. I've also included the remaining of your changes. > > There still are several things that I'm not sure, but I'll leave those > issues to the moment that we

[Dri-devel] Mach64 work update

2002-02-28 Thread José Fonseca
Leif, I've finished the work on the the mach64_* files except for the *_{tris,vb} ones. I've also included the remaining of your changes. There still are several things that I'm not sure, but I'll leave those issues to the moment that we are able to link the driver. At that time it will be ne

Re: [Dri-devel] DRI vs. Xi Graphics performance

2002-02-28 Thread Justin A. Kolodziej
Oops, brain fart. I meant to say this: I think the deal might be that their drivers are optimized for professional applications, like CAD, and whatever else the SPECViewPerf benchmark measures, not games. That would explain a lot of things: non-standard fullscreen interface, the cost, the fac

Re: [Dri-devel] DRI vs. Xi Graphics performance

2002-02-28 Thread Justin A. Kolodziej
Lance Stringham wrote: > Adam K Kirchhoff wrote: > >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Lance Stringham wrote: >> >> >>> Adam K Kirchhoff wrote: >>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi, > > I recently found out that Xi Graphics (http://www.xig.com), a > comp

Re: [Dri-devel] DRI vs. Xi Graphics performance

2002-02-28 Thread Lance Stringham
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote: > On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Lance Stringham wrote: > > >>Adam K Kirchhoff wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi, I recently found out that Xi Graphics (http://www.xig.com), a company that provides accelerated 3D drivers for

Re: [Dri-devel] DRI vs. Xi Graphics performance

2002-02-28 Thread Lance Stringham
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote: > On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > >>Hi, >> >>I recently found out that Xi Graphics (http://www.xig.com), a company >>that provides accelerated 3D drivers for UNIX systems (including Linux), >> claimed that their drivers performances are much better tha

Re: [Dri-devel] DRI vs. Xi Graphics performance

2002-02-28 Thread Adam K Kirchhoff
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi, > > I recently found out that Xi Graphics (http://www.xig.com), a company > that provides accelerated 3D drivers for UNIX systems (including Linux), > claimed that their drivers performances are much better than the DRI > drivers for most

[Dri-devel] DRI vs. Xi Graphics performance

2002-02-28 Thread Laurent Pinchart
Hi, I recently found out that Xi Graphics (http://www.xig.com), a company that provides accelerated 3D drivers for UNIX systems (including Linux), claimed that their drivers performances are much better than the DRI drivers for most graphic chips. Has any of you heard about them, and has be

Re: [Dri-devel] Mach64 work

2002-02-28 Thread Leif Delgass
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, José Fonseca wrote: > On 2002.02.28 10:56 Leif Delgass wrote: > > Jose, > > > > I've been hacking on the tex/texmem/texstate stuff. I just did an update > > and it looks like you've done much of the same thing, so I'm sending a > > diff for you to compare to your changes.

Re: [Dri-devel] Mach64 work

2002-02-28 Thread José Fonseca
On 2002.02.28 10:56 Leif Delgass wrote: > Jose, > > I've been hacking on the tex/texmem/texstate stuff. I just did an update > and it looks like you've done much of the same thing, so I'm sending a > diff for you to compare to your changes. I'm going to download your > changes and have a look b

[Dri-devel] Mach64 work

2002-02-28 Thread Leif Delgass
Jose, I've been hacking on the tex/texmem/texstate stuff. I just did an update and it looks like you've done much of the same thing, so I'm sending a diff for you to compare to your changes. I'm going to download your changes and have a look before I continue. I think the next big chunk is t

[Dri-devel] Inconsistent debug output statement on r128

2002-02-28 Thread José Fonseca
On r128_tex.c the 't' debug output statement on r128AllocTexObj shouldn't be there and has no meaning. static r128TexObjPtr r128AllocTexObj( struct gl_texture_object *texObj ) { r128TexObjPtr t; if ( R128_DEBUG & DEBUG_VERBOSE_API ) { fprintf( stderr, __FUNCTION__"( %p, %p )\n",

[Dri-devel] Radeon DRM

2002-02-28 Thread Roger While
Hi Anybody, Hope you can help me. I am getting the following (permanent) error on logging out from KDE : [drm]radeon_cp_indirect - process using buffer owned by 0 is the PID of the X server and the "owned by" is always 0. The effect is that the top