davidr at novell.com
Thu Mar 16 04:46:37 PST 2006
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 12:36 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> David Reveman wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 14:32 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >> It's been a couple of weeks since I posted my aiglx patch and there
> >> hasn't been a lot of feedback, so I'm going to go ahead and assume
> >> everybody is happy with the approach. In the meantime, we've fixed a
> >> number of crashers, added better logging and added hooks to allow the
> >> GLXprovider to implement the GLX_EXT_tfp extension.
> >> Unless there are any objections to this, I'll merge the aiglx branch to
> >> head this friday (yay, one less branch to keep in sync with mesa).
> > OK, I updated the xgl branch earlier today. Seams to be working alright but I
> > haven't done much testing yet.
> > I had to change a few things to make it work with Xgl. I've attached the
> > current diff between the xgl and aiglx branches and you can find a few
> > short comments to this diff below.
> Thanks, I've merged the first batch of changes, I'm going through the
> rest of the patch now. Once I get that committed, are you planning to
> merge Xgl to head?
Yes, once the GLX code is in sync it shouldn't be too hard to merge Xgl
> On a related note, I saw this commit:
> and I don't understand why you need the GlxFlushContextCache() calls.
> In the loseCurrent case, StopUsingContext(prevglxc) is called later in
> DoMakeCurrent which clear the context cache. In the destroy context
> case, ctx->destroy() is only called from __glXFreeContext() (except for
> DoCreateContext) where the context cache is also cleared.
Yes, I thought I didn't needed them either. I had them there before I
switched to your new GLX code and it turns out it doesn't work without
them so I put them back for now until I have time to figure out why it
More information about the xorg