On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Zack Rusin wrote:
>> well, I'm more familiar w/ EGL where we don't have the xserver
>> advertising anything, and it is all on the client side.. but when it
>> is an inexpensive check, it seems reasonable to want mesa to do the
>> right thing where possible.
>
> It
> well, I'm more familiar w/ EGL where we don't have the xserver
> advertising anything, and it is all on the client side.. but when it
> is an inexpensive check, it seems reasonable to want mesa to do the
> right thing where possible.
It's simply silly. In the same sense that adding yet another
(switching over mesa-dev.. sent to the wrong list initially)
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Paul Menzel
wrote:
> Dear Rob,
>
>
> Am Dienstag, den 12.03.2013, 19:44 -0400 schrieb Rob Clark:
>
> »it« sounds strange in commit summary.
>
>> If ddx does not support swap, don't advertise it.
Hmm, y
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Zack Rusin wrote:
>> hmm, well, I think my fix is not incorrect.. we can tell from dri2
>> proto version that the xserver does not support ScheduleSwap. Maybe
>> there should be other conditions where we also don't advertise this
>> extension, but this patch still
> hmm, well, I think my fix is not incorrect.. we can tell from dri2
> proto version that the xserver does not support ScheduleSwap. Maybe
> there should be other conditions where we also don't advertise this
> extension, but this patch still improves things. If we absolutely
> know from the dri2
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Zack Rusin wrote:
> > well, from what I can tell, if you advertise this extension
>> applications will expect a swap event. Which will never come if
>> dri/glx on client side remaps scheduleswap to copyregion.
>>
>> So maybe there are other conditions where we sh
> well, from what I can tell, if you advertise this extension
> applications will expect a swap event. Which will never come if
> dri/glx on client side remaps scheduleswap to copyregion.
>
> So maybe there are other conditions where we should not advertise this
> extension. But if we know we w
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Zack Rusin wrote:
>> If ddx does not support swap, don't advertise it. We might also be
>> able to get rid of the vmwgfx check (I'm not quite sure the purpose of
>> that check vs. just checking dri2Minor.
>
>
> No, not really. GLX_INTEL_swap_event doesn't have any
> If ddx does not support swap, don't advertise it. We might also be
> able to get rid of the vmwgfx check (I'm not quite sure the purpose of
> that check vs. just checking dri2Minor.
No, not really. GLX_INTEL_swap_event doesn't have any hooks. You're checking
for presence of generic swap exten
If ddx does not support swap, don't advertise it. We might also be
able to get rid of the vmwgfx check (I'm not quite sure the purpose of
that check vs. just checking dri2Minor.
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark
---
src/glx/dri2_glx.c | 12
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
d
10 matches
Mail list logo
