On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 22:39, jhartmann wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jeff, Others,
I've been reviewing the work in the 3.5 branch for backwards
compatibility and to me it looks like we can do it with a lot less
effort. Here's what I'm proposing, in one simple sentence:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 10:14:33AM -0600, jhartmann wrote:
If you have demenstrated that this is the case then we should remove the version
system then I guess. I do want to voice my concerns though by writing out my
argument fully though.
Having a version system is safer. If something does
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:36, Daryll Strauss wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 10:14:33AM -0600, jhartmann wrote:
If you have demenstrated that this is the case then we should remove the
version system then I guess. I do want to voice my concerns though by
writing out my argument fully though.
I suppose I'm basing my assumptions on sarea usage that is not there right
now (a private sarea per context system rather than the temporary copies
which we have now), and assuming a full featured tl card will have
somewhere around 4-16k of possible state. (WARNING: The following is
Keith Whitwell wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:00, Jens Owen wrote:
Keith,
Thanks for addressing this issue. I think it's an important area to our
success. I do have a few questions. They are inline below.
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jeff, Others,
I've been reviewing the work
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 09:44:15PM +0200, Dieter N?tzel wrote:
Hello Andrew,
very nice work!
But can you please redo your patch against the real Mesa-3.5 CVS tree and not
yours?
src/X86/3dnow_xform3.S
src/X86/3dnow_xform4.S
fail.
As I see that you are very good x86 asm hacker and I
LT Now, we already have one case where this broke, which is why we
probably
LT should have a major version number too, which indicates that things
start
LT from a clean slate. So the old 4.0.x DRM should be called version
0.0, and
LT the new 4.1 DRM should be called 1.0.
LT
LT And
Is the drm interface applicable to 2d accelerator cards? This is because
i dont have a supported 3d card.
___
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
There are 2 problems here:
With the current radeon driver the mouse is extremely
jumpy, or does not register movement at all when in
the left hand side of the screen. I've found that
setting Option sw_cursor, causes things to run
smoothly again.
With the current Radeon driver, I'm getting a
(Resend)
I've found 2 issues w/ the Radeon 7200 in Linux.
The first, I've seen with several other Radeons - 64mb
DDR, 32mb DDR, 64mb SDR. In the left hand side of the
screen, the mouse cursor will be extremely jumpy(or
just not update on movement at all), I've found that
setting sw_cursor fixes
The Radeon 7200 DRI drivers work, but performance is a
problem. I get roughly 1/2 to 1/3 the performance in
linux than in windows. I've tried quake3 and unreal
tournament. In Windows I get about 100fps in UT, as
opposed to 40 or so in Linux. (Quake3 was even
worse...) Linux glxgears only
Keith Whitwell wrote:
I suppose I'm basing my assumptions on sarea usage that is not there right
now (a private sarea per context system rather than the temporary copies
which we have now), and assuming a full featured tl card will have
somewhere around 4-16k of possible state.
12 matches
Mail list logo
