[compiz] compiz-aiglx patch

[gandalfn]

Le mardi 18 avril 2006 à 14:22 -0700, James Jones a écrit :
> On Tuesday 18 April 2006 02:02 pm, Guillaume Seguin wrote:
> > 2006/4/18, gandalfn <gandalfn at club-internet.fr>:
> > > hi,
> > >
> > > a small patch inspired from Kristian Høgsberg compiz-aiglx
> > > patch, to use compiz with xorg aiglx with tftp_damage patch and
> > > gl-include-inferior patch.
> > >
> > > this patch add command-line option to force bind and release
> > > whenever the texture is used.
> > >
> > > to use it you must start xorg in 16 depth mode, and start
> > > compiz with LIBGL_ALWAYS_INDIRECT
> > > environnement variable
> > >
> > > PS : sorry for my bad english
> >
> > Many thanks :)
> > I now understand that I spent hours on this for nothing ^^ (my
> > patch looked like yours, it just does not feature the accelerated
> > indirect rendering option, and i was searching why there were no
> > decoration)
> >
> > Anyway, is there any hope that the 16bpp problem get fixed? I
> > fear it might be a driver/xorg related problem..
> 
> Gandalfn, Guillaume, David:
> 
> It looks like the major change AIGLX support requires is a rebind 
> whenever damage occurs.  To be strictly compliant with the texture 
> from pixmap spec, this is also required.  Perhaps rather than use 
> the option name "--accelerated-indirect-rendering" which furthers 
> the  confusion that indirect rendering previously meant software 
> rendering (This was only the case for one GLX implementation), the 
> option should be called something like "--conformant", 
> "--compatibility", "--strict-binding" or something similar.
> 
> Regardless, I like the idea of giving users a clear option to run 
> compiz in a guaranteed-to-work, spec-compliant mode, while leaving 
> the default behavior to run in the faster, bind-once mode.  If, in 
> the future, developers want to add strict locking as discussed to 
> death on the xorg list, this option could potentially toggle that 
> behavior as well.
> 
> Thanks,
> -James Jones
> 
> nvpublic
> 
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Guillaume Seguin
> 

I agree on it the name of option is not very beautiful nor clearly, in
fact it's a reference to your patch and indirectRendering option
James :)