On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 22:30 -0800, Luca Barbieri wrote: > > I left out depth/stencil attachment because I could not think of a good > > reason > > for it. Do you have an example that it is better to ask the display server > > for > > a depth/stencil buffer than asking the pipe driver? > > I'm not sure about this. I mostly added it just because the old driver > stack asks DRI2 for it. > On second thought, it may be better to do it with the pipe driver. > This would prevent sharing the depth buffer with other application, > but I don't think any compositor/application uses this.
Theoretically an application could create a direct and indirect context targetting the same window. Under those circumstances, there should be only a single depth buffer shared between the contexts. There are other ways to achieve the same result, basically sharing a depth buffer between processes. Keith ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Mesa3d-dev mailing list Mesa3d-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mesa3d-dev
