It's a go here. I just installed 2.5.48 and I'm using mesa-4-1-branch. I just got done
a wolfenstein session :) .
On (20/11/02 07:20), Dieter N?tzel wrote:
> No go so far.
>
> Modules are somewhat broken in 2.5.48.
> I saw radeon 1.7.0 20020828 but no go, yet ;-(
>
> [drm] Initialized radeon 1.
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Dieter Nützel wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 20. November 2002 00:55 schrieb Ian Molton:
> > >
> > > Linus updated 2.5.48 with Brian's latest DRM r200 stuff so I should do
> > > some testing.
>
> No go so far.
>
> Modules are somewhat broken in 2.5.48.
One approach is to not use mod
Am Mittwoch, 20. November 2002 00:55 schrieb Ian Molton:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 20:50:50 +0100
>
> Dieter Nützel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Thats my birthday! :)
> >
> > Hey, mine comes first :-)
> >
> > Hopefully with Mesa-5.x.
> > Going into mesa-4-1-branch testing mode, now.
> >
> > Linus u
U xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/scanpci/xf86PciData.c
dri-mesa-4-1/xc> diff xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/scanpci/xf86PciData.c
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/scanpci/xf86PciData.c.old
1c1
< /* $XFree86: xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/scanpci/xf86PciData.c,v 1.5
2000/04/05 18:13:58 dawes Exp $
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Brian Paul wrote:
> Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
> > Alright, after clearing out my local copy of the mesa-4.1 branch, I pulled
> > everything again and was able to build that branch without any problems.
> >
> > I've done some basic testing so far.
> >
> > This is on a dua
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
Alright, after clearing out my local copy of the mesa-4.1 branch, I pulled
everything again and was able to build that branch without any problems.
I've done some basic testing so far.
This is on a dual proc, 1ghz., PIII. Via chipset. 2x AGP, 64 meg
aperature. 512
Alright, after clearing out my local copy of the mesa-4.1 branch, I pulled
everything again and was able to build that branch without any problems.
I've done some basic testing so far.
This is on a dual proc, 1ghz., PIII. Via chipset. 2x AGP, 64 meg
aperature. 512 megs of RAM. Radeon 85
Am Dienstag, 19. November 2002 09:55 schrieb Ian Molton:
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 21:35:44 -0500
>
> David Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That depends on how things with Mesa
> > 5.0 go before the XFree86 feature freeze date (30 November).
>
> Thats my birthday! :)
Hey, mine comes first :-)
Ho
Am Dienstag, 19. November 2002 15:01 schrieb Stefan Lange:
> Major A wrote:
> > I heard a while ago that some company was sponsoring the development
> > of a proper DRI driver for the ATI R200 -- can someone briefly update
> > me as to what the status of that driver is in the latest release and
> >
Ian Romanick wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:55:12AM -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
Ian Romanick wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 08:35:45AM -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
Well, there isn't an official query like this, but there is the
_glapi_get_version() function which returns the version of the dispa
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Brian Paul wrote:
>
>
>>Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
>>
>>>So I decided to give the mesa-4-1-branch a whirl and do some
testing... I
>>>grabbed it from CVS:
>>>
>>>$ cvs -z3 co -r mesa-4-1-branch xc
>>>
>>>And then I did a Make world. Unfortunately, it di
Hold on a sec. I've got too many different branches of the DRI on my
machine (the texmem branch, the mesa-4.1 branch, and the trunk) so now I'm
beginning to second guess what I've updated and what I haven't.
I'm gonna clean everything off and do a fresh pull of the mesa-4.1 branch.
Adam
On Tue
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Brian Paul wrote:
> Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Brian Paul wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
> >>
> >>>So I decided to give the mesa-4-1-branch a whirl and do some testing... I
> >>>grabbed it from CVS:
> >>>
> >>>$ cvs -z3 co -r mesa-4-1-bran
Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:04:54PM -0500, Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Brian Paul wrote:
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
So I decided to give the mesa-4-1-branch a whirl and do some testing... I
grabbed it from CVS:
$ cvs -z3 co -r mesa-4-1-branch xc
And the
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:04:54PM -0500, Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Brian Paul wrote:
>
> > Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
> > > So I decided to give the mesa-4-1-branch a whirl and do some testing... I
> > > grabbed it from CVS:
> > >
> > > $ cvs -z3 co -r mesa-4-1-branch xc
>
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Brian Paul wrote:
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
So I decided to give the mesa-4-1-branch a whirl and do some testing... I
grabbed it from CVS:
$ cvs -z3 co -r mesa-4-1-branch xc
And then I did a Make world. Unfortunately, it didn't get very far:
mak
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Brian Paul wrote:
> Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
> > So I decided to give the mesa-4-1-branch a whirl and do some testing... I
> > grabbed it from CVS:
> >
> > $ cvs -z3 co -r mesa-4-1-branch xc
> >
> > And then I did a Make world. Unfortunately, it didn't get very far:
> >
>
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:55:12AM -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
> Ian Romanick wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 08:35:45AM -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
> >>Well, there isn't an official query like this, but there is the
> >>_glapi_get_version() function which returns the version of the dispatcher
> >>cod
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 09:53:28AM +0100, Johannes Rath wrote:
> Jens Owen wrote:
>
> > Oddly enough, ATI provides a libGL.so replacement in their package. I'm
> > not sure why they do this.
>
> You don't neccessary need to replace libGL.so.1.2 If you do not, you just
> loose some extended func
Ian Romanick wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 08:35:45AM -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
Allen Akin wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 08:14:53PM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
|
| How does one go about determining the (data structure / API) version of
| libGL.so?
As I understand it, there isn't a formal ver
Heh.. I actually noticed it a couple days ago on the texmem branch, but I
figured that I was doing something odd/wrong. Guess not :-)
Adam
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Urs Schroffenegger wrote:
> Well, I didn't find what's wrong, but i encountered exactly the same
> thing at exactly the same point (
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
So I decided to give the mesa-4-1-branch a whirl and do some testing... I
grabbed it from CVS:
$ cvs -z3 co -r mesa-4-1-branch xc
And then I did a Make world. Unfortunately, it didn't get very far:
make[5]: Entering directory `/home/adamk/mesa-4.1-branch/xc/xc/programs
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 08:35:45AM -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
> Allen Akin wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 08:14:53PM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
> > |
> > | How does one go about determining the (data structure / API) version of
> > | libGL.so?
> >
> > As I understand it, there isn't a formal ve
So I decided to give the mesa-4-1-branch a whirl and do some testing... I
grabbed it from CVS:
$ cvs -z3 co -r mesa-4-1-branch xc
And then I did a Make world. Unfortunately, it didn't get very far:
make[5]: Entering directory
`/home/adamk/mesa-4.1-branch/xc/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/inp
REFINANCE NOW, EVEN WITH BAD CREDIT!!!
*Best Refi Rate for credit challenged.
*Best Customer Service
*Lowest Interest Rates in Years
*SAVE $100-400 per month
OUR EASY APPLICATION ONLY TAKES 2 MINUTES.
click here for more information
http://61.172.245.40/index.html?leadsource=jc10
---
Ian,
I happened to be looking at glxcmds.c. The glXSwapIntervalSGI()
function is already there (along with most known GLX extension
functions). It's just a stub though. I had forgotten that I
added stub functions for most/all GLX extensions a few years
ago, hoping it would simplify things down
Allen Akin wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 08:14:53PM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
|
| How does one go about determining the (data structure / API) version of
| libGL.so?
As I understand it, there isn't a formal version number. Apps that
follow the Linux ABI shouldn't need to be aware of the libGL
David Dawes wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 03:43:02PM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
Is this hammered in stone?
When will we see the next XFree86 release (4.4.0), then.
Shouldn't OpenGL 1.4 better go in sooner then later?
Would the Mesa 5.x merge be too large of a change for XFree86 4.3.1? There
Major A wrote:
I heard a while ago that some company was sponsoring the development
of a proper DRI driver for the ATI R200 -- can someone briefly update
me as to what the status of that driver is in the latest release and
in CVS? Is it a worthy replacement (in OpenGL performance and
stability) fo
I'm curious if anyone has talked to ATI recently about allowing support
for vertex and pixel shaders into the r200 driver? From what I
understand, ATI wasn't going to allow opensource drivers to support those
features, but there was some hope that they might change their mind :-)
Adam
---
Title: AW: [Dri-devel] Adding GLX extensions?
Jens Owen wrote:
> Oddly enough, ATI provides a libGL.so replacement in their package. I'm
> not sure why they do this.
You don't neccessary need to replace libGL.so.1.2 If you do not, you just loose some extended functionality like GLX 1.3
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 21:35:44 -0500
David Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That depends on how things with Mesa
> 5.0 go before the XFree86 feature freeze date (30 November).
Thats my birthday! :)
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by: To lea
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 20:39, Manuel Bilderbeek wrote:
>
> Ian Romanick wrote:
> >>radeonUploadTexImages: ran into bound texture
> >
> > trying building and installing the texmem-0-0-1 branch. If the problem does
> > not exist in the branch, then we'll probably want to back-port the fix to
> > th
33 matches
Mail list logo
