1 Feb 2005 01:31
[Bug 2428] Remove useless #ifdef GLX_DIRECT_RENDERING from drivers
<bugzilla-daemon <at> freedesktop.org>
2005-02-01 00:31:32 GMT
2005-02-01 00:31:32 GMT
Please do not reply to this email: if you want to comment on the bug, go to the URL shown below and enter yourcomments there. https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2428 ------- Additional Comments From ajax <at> nwnk.net 2005-01-31 16:31 ------- the current thinking is that accelerated indirect GLX involves loading DRI drivers, preferably the same ones that are loaded by the clients. from the driver's perspective, they're always doing "direct rendering" because they're always talking directly to the hardware. the X server is just another DRI client in this case. backing this out would imply that we want two sets of drivers, one client-loadable and one server-loadable. i don't think we want that. and it still wouldn't be correct, because not all the drivers even had these ifdefs (none of the intel drivers, trident, unichrome). and the define in question didn't even delineate a consistent set of functionality in the drivers that did have it (practically everything inside the ifdef for mach64 versus GetLock and two state emits for mga). it didn't define a useful API, and we couldn't build with it off. there's no functional change here. if we do want distinct drivers for client versus server, then we can define that API when we are actually at the point of having libglx even capable of loading drivers. and if we do so it can have a more useful name than GLX_DIRECT_RENDERING since by the time you're down in the driver you don't know or care if it's GLX, as opposed to say EGL. GLX_DIRECT_RENDERING should really only mean "build the GLX client library to know how to load DRI drivers". note that i didn't touch libGL.(Continue reading)
RSS Feed