Michael I Gold wrote:
>
> At 04:03 PM 10/14/99 -0600, Brett Johnson wrote:
>
> >So are you saying that before GetProcAddress can be called for a given
> >extension,
> >a context which supports this extension must have been created and bound at
> >some
> >time previous? This seems like a pretty onerous requirement to me, and
> kind of
> >invalidates the whole reason for context independent pointers in the first
> >place.
>
> On the flip side, does it make sense to even call GetProcAddress before you
> have queried the existance of an extension? I think not.
I can think of at least one instance where it makes sense:
- You're writing a library. At initialization, you want to gather all of
the function pointers you might call later (depending on whether the
associated extension is supported).
> And synthesizing
> the GLX protocol requires an implementation to provide a template; the
> client side GLX can't do its initialization work unless an implementation
> is present. I suppose this can all be done at process initialization time,
> when each driver registers itself with the GLX. Sounds like a pretty
> heavy-weight initialization though. Maybe we should stick with context
> dependence, hehe. :)
I don't understand the point you're making here Michael. There is a fixed
amount of initialization overhead added to every context creation in order
to support context independent pointers (i.e. the driver must "register" all
of its supported entrypoints). Why would this overhead be any different for
an indirect context? Am I missing something?
> I dunno, this is a tough call. I think I'll just raise this issue and
> avoid pontificating, for a change.
Michael, since I don't think I understand the issue you're raising, I think
I'd appreciate a little more pontificating on your part ;o).
Cheers!
--
Brett Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Workstation Systems Lab
Hewlett-Packard Company
"Politicians, like diapers, should be changed regularly,
and for the same reason."
