Dave Airlie <[email protected]> writes: > I considered this, but really drawables are generally a protocol > object, in a lot of cases a Window which really has no interesting > properties to a GPU.
Yeah, getting to the point where the only GPU visible objects are pixmaps would be great; that's the surface we're drawing to, after all. It seems like making that migration within the current API might actually be fairly straightforward? Hack up the Picture code so that all coordinates are screen-relative and just start passing the window pixmap, then do the same for GC rendering? > So since ajax has convinced me for GCs and Pictures that I really want > per-GPU versions, I was think of adding a pScreen to Picture and to a > few interfaces like GetImage need changes, but much reduced. Are you thinking that the existing GC and Picture structs become the GPU versions and that we create new protocol structs then? Otherwise, we'll run into a constant stream of confusion over which "kind" of struct each API requires, right? -- [email protected]
pgp1LxJDWiFyd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
