Xgl page - http://www.freedesktop.org/Software/Xgl
davidr at novell.com
Tue Mar 8 16:44:05 PST 2005
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 16:07 -0500, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 00:39 +0100, David Reveman wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 22:45 -0500, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 03:52 +0100, David Reveman wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 03:21 +0100, Christian Parpart wrote:
> > > > > How's the state for nvidia users? Can they use Xgl somehow?
> > > >
> > > > The only thing that exists right now is Xglx, which is a server running
> > > > on top an already existing X server with GLX support. x86 nvidia users
> > > > seem to be the ones that can run this best at the moment.
> > >
> > > FWIW, it works pretty well for me with fglrx. You have me curious, is
> > > there anything that works with nvidia but not fglrx?
> > Pbuffers, so no accelerated offscreen rendering with fglrx. Xglx runs
> > pretty well anyway as the back buffer is used for offscreen drawing and
> > that's enough for the compositing manager to run nicely, but normal
> > windows and pixmaps are all rendered in software.
> > The fglrx driver do have some puffer support in it, but it contains
> > memory leaks and doesn't seem to be very stable. I guess that's why the
> > driver doesn't actually report pbuffer support. The memory leaks aren't
> > that big of a problem for Xglx as all used pbuffer memory is allocated
> > when starting the server and Xgl is then doing the memory management on
> > its own. If you want to try the pbuffer support provided by the fglrx
> > driver, you should be able to get glitz to detect pbuffer support by
> > forcing glx_version to >=1.3 and GLX extensions 'fbconfig' and 'pbuffer'
> > as detected in glx/glitz_glx_info.c.
> Ah, I was wondering why it wasn't using pbuffers... I'll look into why
> it doesn't advertise these extensions (maybe glitz could still try to
> use an extension if GetProcAddress succeeds for all needed functions?),
I've done this before but it turned out a bad idea for two reasons:
1. As GetProcAddress is allowed to return an empty handle there's no way
to know if it really succeeds.
2. I've noticed that many OpenGL drivers have as policy to list all
extensions that the driver is able to accelerate, which means that if an
extension is required by the advertised OpenGL version but not listed in
the extension string, it's usually done in software. We don't want this
to happen as we can probably do the software fall-back a lot better on
> but I think there might be another problem in glitz as well: For direct
> rendered contexts, shouldn't it use glXGetClientString(...,
> GLX_EXTENSIONS) instead of glXQueryExtensionsString() (and analogously
> for the GLX version)?
Correct, I'll commit a fix for this in a day or so. Thanks.
More information about the xorg