On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:21 PM, George Sapountzis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Ian Romanick <[email protected]> wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> George Sapountzis wrote: >> >>> This is about using glFunction() calls instead of the CALL_Function( >>> GET_DISPATCH(), () ) macros. Obviously, this is code clarity vs. call >>> overhead and RSS overhead, hopefully, it can be done on a case-by-case >>> basis where it makes sense. I put patches at >>> http://people.freedesktop.org/~gsap7/xgl/ for an example conversion of >>> glxcmds.c and glxdri.c, the patches are on top of the glapi sync >>> patches at http://people.freedesktop.org/~gsap7/glapi/ . I am posting >>> because I thought it may be useful in some cases. >> >> I haven't reviewed these patches yet, but I do have a couple general >> comments. We considered doing this initially, but rejected it for a >> couple of reasons. Most of the places where GL functions are called are >> automatically generated. The script doesn't care if it's generating >> glFoo or CALL_Foo(GET_DISPATCH(), ()). On the client-side, the loader >> provides, with some effort, the static dispatch functions. On the >> server-side, the only use of GL functions *is* the loader. It didn't >> seem to make much sense to bring all that mechanism into the server just >> for the server to use. >> >> I seem to recall some discussion about creating a set of wrapper macros >> like: >> >> #define glFoo(x, y, z) CALL_Foo(GET_DISPATCH(), (x, y, z)) >> >> for use in the server. Given that most of the calls are generated by >> scripts, there didn't seem to be much benefit. > > You are right, there does not seem to be much benefit.
That was my initial reaction too... there are very few hand-coded calls to GL entry points. Kristian _______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
