why ? how huge ? I understand that direct rendering could improve performances but I can run very GPU expensive patchs you made without direct rendering and without noticable difference.
So it may be worth a try... a -- do it yourself http://antoine.villeret.free.fr 2014-10-27 11:11 GMT+01:00 Cyrille Henry <[email protected]>: > > > Le 27/10/2014 10:41, Antoine Villeret a écrit : >> >> hello, >> >> since texture sharing seems to work between context inside one Gem's >> instance, I'm now wondering how we can introduce texture sharing >> between process. >> According to [1], texture (and more generally display list) can be >> shared between process if direct rendering is disabled and process are >> using the same X server. >> If I understand correctly, the only thing to do is to share the >> display list structure over process. >> Could we use shared memory to do that ? >> >> I look into the [gemglxwindow] and [gemglutwindow] code and it looks a >> bit obscure to me, it uses advanced C++ idioms (PIMPL for the former >> and CALLBACK4WIN for the latter) that I don't understand well yet. So >> I want to know if this texture sharing between process is feasible >> before going deeper. > > > direct rendering disable? > that's look like a huge problem... > > cheers > c > >> >> Cheers >> >> Antoine >> >> [1] : https://www.opengl.org/sdk/docs/man2/xhtml/glXCreateContext.xml >> -- >> do it yourself >> http://antoine.villeret.free.fr >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GEM-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > GEM-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev _______________________________________________ GEM-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev
