On 06/27/2011 12:17 PM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Chia-I Wu<olva...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Chia-I Wu<o...@lunarg.com>
The idea is that DRI driver, libGL and libOSMesa are libraries that can
be independently enabled, yet --with-driver does not allow us to easily
do that, if not impossible. This also matches what
--enable-{egl,xorg,d3d1x} do for the respective libraries.
I haven't read this in any detail, but I definitely like the idea.
When I originally wrote all this, I struggled to coordinate DRI vs.
GLX, and I didn't really bother with the EGL code that was mostly
experimental. This is much more coherently structured.
There are two libGL providers: Xlib-based and DRI-based. They cannot
coexist. To be able to choose between them, --enable-xlib-glx is also
added.
This is the only part that kind of bugs me. It seems to me that the
--enable-dri and --enable-xlib-glx options aren't really symmetric. I
believe you'd need this to be --enable-dri-glx to really act as a
provider. I can see why you didn't do that since dri is a "provider"
to many of the APIs and would require a lot more hacking of
configure.ac. Is my understanding of that correct? I'm not as familiar
with the newer non-GL Mesa components.
How does --enable-xcb ("use XCB for GLX") fit in? I've been using that
for ages. Why isn't it the default these days? XCB isn't exactly
cutting edge, and I believe we already use it for some DRI2 stuff. Is
there some Xlib-based stuff that still needs to be converted? Can we
just kill Xlib-GLX entirely?
I'm probably not understanding any of this...sorry :)
--Kenneth
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
