On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 11:56 -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 20:33 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > The way this is currently done with DRI2 is an implementation detail and > > clearly sub-optimal in some cases. > > I haven't heard of any substantive issues with the DRI2 implementation, > if you have concerns about how it works, now would be an excellent time > to raise them.
I raised them a long time ago... What's happened with DRI2 is that most of the GLX synchronization functionality available with DRI1 has been ignored, and instead there's an implicit ad-hoc implementation detail. > > It's a bad idea to encode these semantics in a rendering API. > > OpenGL encodes these semantics in its rendering API, so at least we'd be > in good company. No, there's a difference between OpenGL and GLX. > > An extension which deals with synchronization, as opposed to rendering. > > The operation we're interested in here is a copy from a back buffer to a > front buffer. Which would naturally be CopyArea (just like the DRI2 implementations you keep bringing up), not a RENDER operation. > Would you rather we add swapping controls to the render extension or > rendering operations to the sync extension? Strawman. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.vmware.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer _______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
