On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 15:49 -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Corbin Simpson wrote:
Curious. Admittedly I can't look at the content of that commit, but they
can't be too useless if compiz selects them. IIRC the point was to limit
the runtime of
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 19:07 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
Hi,
Today I updated the graphical modules from long time ago.
Do you know what causes this:
/usr/bin/compiz.real (core) - Warn: No GLXFBConfig for depth 32
/usr/bin/compiz.real (core) - Warn: No GLXFBConfig for depth 32
On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 20:34 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 19:07 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
Hi,
Today I updated the graphical modules from long time ago.
Do you know what causes this:
/usr/bin/compiz.real (core) - Warn: No GLXFBConfig for depth 32
Curious. Admittedly I can't look at the content of that commit, but they
can't be too useless if compiz selects them. IIRC the point was to limit the
runtime of Intel internal tests; can't those tests be amended instead? The
number of configs will only grow; r300g has over 200 now thanks to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Corbin Simpson wrote:
Curious. Admittedly I can't look at the content of that commit, but they
can't be too useless if compiz selects them. IIRC the point was to limit
the runtime of Intel internal tests; can't those tests be amended
instead? The
Hi,
Today I updated the graphical modules from long time ago.
Do you know what causes this:
/usr/bin/compiz.real (core) - Warn: No GLXFBConfig for depth 32
/usr/bin/compiz.real (core) - Warn: No GLXFBConfig for depth 32
/usr/bin/compiz.real (core) - Warn: No GLXFBConfig for depth 32
WARNING:
