[cairo] Re: glitz progress

[Jamey Sharp]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:14:21AM +0200, David Reveman wrote:
> We never really had a good test program for glitz. I've now written one
> that I think is OK.
> It has a backend system so XRender can be used with it as well. I've got
> glitz backends for GLX and AGL working and I've also implemented an XCB
> backend but that's currently broken due to some put_pixels problem (I
> think). However, this test program is good for testing how well a
> graphics card/driver works with glitz. Right now rendertest only tests
> the composite operation but I'll add trapezoid tests as well as
> convolution filter and gradient filters tests as soon as I got the new
> implementation of those working with glitz. You can get this test
> program from cairo CVS, module name 'rendertest'. You'll also need the
> latest CVS version of glitz for this to compile.

On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 04:22:59AM +0200, David Reveman wrote:
> Hi Jamey!

Hi David!

> I've written a new test application for glitz called 'rendertest'. To be
> able to compare the output of glitz to X Render, rendertest includes a
> simple backend system where graphics systems with X Render semantics can
> plug in. I've added an XCB backend,

Cool!

> but images are not transfered to pixmaps correctly. Some images are
> transfered correctly and some are not. I'm probably doing something
> stupid.

Oops, no, you found two different XCB bugs. Check out latest CVS of both
xcb-proto and xcb, rebuild everything, and your test should work.

Yours is the first test program that I've seen that tried to PutImage
more than 64kB (the first bug), and that tried to send a request bigger
than 256kB (the other bug). So thanks! :-)

> btw, would it be possible to use XCB for finding visuals, creating
> windows... and then just use ordinary glx calls for the GLX protocol?

Er, well, yeah, if you use Xlib compiled --with-xcb, then you can use
any Xlib-based library you want...

We need some sort of libgl port. At USENIX I talked with Bart and Eric
about what form a libgl port should take, but I don't recall us coming
to a conclusion. I've just studied the Mesa source, and I can't see any
calls to anything but the core X protocol, so XCB shouldn't need
anything new for this port, I guess. I really thought Mesa would use the
GLX extension somewhere... I'm confused. Maybe Eric or somebody can help
me understand?
-- 
Jamey Sharp <jamey at minilop.net> - http://minilop.net/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/cairo/attachments/20040810/44fdd05f/attachment.pgp