Keith Whitwell wrote:
>
> >
> > KW> The good news is there's no real cost to switching between
> > KW> mechanisms,
> >
> > Isn't there an overhead when going into page flipping mode in that the
> > server has to duplicate the contents of the front buffer into the both
> > buffers?
>
> I really meant falling back from pageflipping to swapping in the case of many
> cliprects (to get the private buffer case we currently have where we can
> ignore cliprects in the backbuffer).
Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.
> > KW> but we do have to decide at the start of the frame which one to
> > KW> use, and that frame has to be in the "non-flipped" state - ie.
> > KW> we have that opportunity to fallback every second frame, I think..."
> >
> > If the server can start rendering to buffer B as it's current front (as
> > described in scenario above), then couldn't you switch modes on *any*
> > frame? I don't understand why you are limited to every second frame.
>
> That fallback can happen on any frame.
Good, then you don't have to worry about waiting indefinitely for the
next frame, which may never arrive.
> The private-backbuffer case really has
> to be the backbuffer as treating the frontbuffer as private would break the
> blitting technique that we use to keep the (real) backbuffer uptodate... To
> have a private backbuffer & ignore cliprects, it really does have to be the
> backbuffer.
I thought we only supported private back buffers when we had a single 3D
window, so wouldn't back buffer functionality be excluded when we
support page flipping?
-- /\
Jens Owen / \/\ _
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ \ \ Steamboat Springs, Colorado
_______________________________________________________________
Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference
August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
