"Jon M. Taylor" wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Lee Brown wrote:
>
> > >what is the support for offscreen video memory allocation ?
> > >I'm not sure I use the correct terminology, so here is what
> > >I have in mind:
> >
> > Why can't we just let the client (Stefan) draw to the offscreen part
> > of the framebuffer?
>
> There may not always BE an offscreen part of the framebuffer on
> all targets. In particular, the targets which do not support one or more
> DirectBuffer mappings cannot use this method.
>
I assume that the targets without DirectBuffer support are of no interest to many
people. The GGI/KGI team should concentrate on DirectBuffered ones.
For me, one of the main errors on the politics that guide the development of GGI is
the excessive generalization of the concept of target.
Yes, you have many targets avaible on GGI. But are they useful? What about the
handling of directbuffers, z-buffers, stencil buffers, double-triple buffers,
video-tv buffers, etc... that the new graphics boards have and that the people are
anxious to manage?
>
> > I wrote a little demo (with minor changes to the fbdev
> > code) program that allowed me to draw offscreen (outside of the virtual area)
> > and then use ggiCopyBox to blit it to the viewable (virtual/pannable) area when
> > needed. What am I missing here?
>
> Did you try it on all targets?
>
> Jon
>
> ---
> 'Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in
> becoming one with God.'
> - Scientist G. Richard Seed
