memory visual is for reading/writing to/from a memory block and treating
it like a video display.
frame-buffer visuals is for the core framebuffer driver support in systems
such as linux. It's sometimes accelerated if the driver has been written
for such (afaik Matrox cards). This is a kernel-level graphic driver.
I'm not sure if the memory visual can be targetted at specific memory
locations but both are intended for different purposes.
though if I remember correctly, a memory visual could probably be used on
an Amiga as a display window under some circumstances? :)
Other than all of that, I'm not aware of any constraints on either barring
that whatever mode the framebuffer is set to has to be valid for the
driver it's talking to. ie: mine's only 640x480, all other modes on my
card are corrupt or nonoperational for the framebuffer driver.
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Eric , Yu-En Lue wrote:
> Hihi
> I read the manual , it uses "display-visual" when opening
> the memory visual , however , in ggi_init , I see only
> string like "memory" , which one should I use? :)
>
> And is there any constriants or differences using the
> ggi-frame-buffer visual and the memory one?
>
> thanks!
