Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

[Pietro Gagliardi]

Okay, that's fine. What I'm saying is that you don't have to write  
something from scratch to get something else working. If you actually  
do get one of the other OpenGL implementations to work, then porting  
Gallium3D is a lot easier.

Either way, you won't need direct hardware manipulation on Plan 9.  
Just run it from a virtual machine and see where you go from there.

On Feb 3, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Filipp Andronov wrote:

There were many attempts to port OpenGL to Plan 9, none of which I
got to work. I started working on a ground-up 3D library but lost it
to a faulty Plan 9 partition.
I have no plan to start serious works about OpenGL porting. I just
want to play with Plan9, if i port Gallium3D if will be great success.

Actually i have no working Plan9 yet (!), so i just looking around,
reading documentation and asking about some questions that i have in
my mind :)

So my plans is not something serious, i just looking for somethings  
for fun :)

2008/2/3, Pietro Gagliardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
There were many attempts to port OpenGL to Plan 9, none of which I
got to work. I started working on a ground-up 3D library but lost it
to a faulty Plan 9 partition.

On Feb 3, 2008, at 10:56 AM, Filipp Andronov wrote:

Some graphics chip, actually i want port OpenGL to Plan9, but DRI  
has
ugly architecture and Mesa with X11 are overload by unnecessary  
code,
as far as i know it is because of historical reasons.

I have experience with X11 and OpenGL specifications and device  
driver
development, so my plan was port general parts of mesa (not all of
course), but with out DRI on Intel graphics chip (i have that card)
with hardware acceleration.
When i start dig problem i have found DRI replacement known as
Gallium3D, it is completely new project (from Mesa community as  
far as
i know) and it small enough for try to port it. Intel chips has very
good documentation and linux driver what i know very well. So plan
was:
1. Port Gallium3D, pieces by piece
2. Port some features from Linux Intel driver to Plan9 if necessary
3. Try to port some pieces Mesa

Of course it is a very big work, and i know that, but it is
interesting enough to be fun. I have no target to create completely
OpenGL implementation or port of Mesa, i just want to play with  
Plan9
kernel, Mesa and Intel card :))

2008/2/3, Pietro Gagliardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Out of curiosity, what hardware do you need to get working?

On Feb 3, 2008, at 10:28 AM, Filipp Andronov wrote:

I'm not sure that "project fork" is a best way. Because hardware
problem is a little piece of work and it's lays it separate  
module.
The biggest part of application is a some computations and some
algorithms implementation...As far, as application was port in  
many
different Linux platforms, it's almost impossible to find some
function with out #ifdef :))

Ok, any way, it looks like "project fork" is simplest way to do
port,
so any other ways    is not very interesting. I think that this
way is
most correct, because in that case i could redesign many parts of
this
application in "plan9 style", do some soft services like, files  
for
example  :)

Thanks to all for your help :)

2008/2/3, Pietro Gagliardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
You need to do direct hardware manipulation? Then "project  
fork" is
probably best.

On Feb 3, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Filipp Andronov wrote:

Heh, i try to "port" my program, and it's really not possible
in my
point of view :)

Actually, i don't have working Plan9 right now, reason is quite
simple, on my hardware plan9 does do not work (PC emulators
couldn't
help because my program should work with some special hardware),
so i
try to create PC  from "supported hardware" list, but it take  
some
time to get all pieces, put they together, install, configure
plan9
and so on ))
  Ok, i have no Plan9, but i have my application that i want to
port,
so i try to remove all autotools macros from it and try to do  
some
preparations, like new abstraction layer for threads
creation...and
i'm completely failed, just because too much autotools stuff in
sources. And it too complicated to figure out what exactly i
should
remove in every case...
And my application much smaller that mesa for example. Or X11  
(by
the
way, how X11 was ported?), and i do not touсh such problems  
like
different library, kernel interfaces and so, and so...

So it looks like "project fork" is only way :(

2008/2/3, Paweł Lasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Feb 3, 2008 2:55 AM, Pietro Gagliardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Circular cause and consequence is funny. Let me add to this
list:
- jpg
- png
- tiff
- PostScript
- TeX (tpic)
- HTML
- Mahjongg, sokoban, sudoku, tetris (games/4s)
- SPARC, MIPS, x64
- MP3, PCM, OGG (PAC was made at Bell Labs)
- SoundBlaster 16

Let me put it this way:
        GNU software is good, except for GNU development  
tools,
which,
except for the gcc program itself, are mediocre and break
compatibility (try using a Bell Labs makefile with GNU make).


I'd add to it the fact that autotools source files are hard to
make, so
many people who are to lazy to do it properly just put the  
famous
(in)sanity check and checks for libs they use. The effect?

A simple C program that doesn't rely on anything except for
example libpng
will check for C, C++, FORTRAN 77 compilers, check if those are
from
GCC and various other things.

Imagine my surprise when I had seen a configure script (for
EmacsLisp
utility) that only checked for Emacs version
and few EmacsLisp files it used - a rare thing IMHO, when  
>80% of
configure running time is for checking for not used
software.

"CPU cycles are cheap, programmer time is expensive" <--- This
doesn't
mean that total laziness is appropriate.

The best thing about autotools is I think the scheme of running
configure - AFAIK mplayer doesn't even use configure for it's
script,
instead
they use their own, which looks the same to end user. And saves
a lot
of time :-)

--
Paul Lasek