On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 13:57 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote: > Adam Jackson <a...@redhat.com> writes: > > > These calls are appropriate for indirect contexts; when we're building > > without indirect support we don't want to reference libGL at all. > > It seems to me like a lot the code blocks calling these flushes ought to > be only in the iglx build anyway. How would a glx/-implemented > SwapBuffers() or CopySubBufferMesa() do the right thing on a direct > context?
Oh, it's worse than that. SwapBuffers is _explicitly_ legal to call without a context at all, just naming the drawable. Some peoples' drivers even implement that. What's meant to happen in that situation is that the thread doing the rendering has done its own glFinish to get the bits into the back, and then the direct rendering implementation knows how to find the back buffer for the drawable because it told the server about it already. It stands a chance of working in DRI1 due to the giant shared back buffer. DRI2/3 don't bother to try, which I consider something of a failing, but if the client gave us enough information we could keep track of what kind of direct context we were dealing with. - ajax _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
