Multiple EGL implementations

[Adam Jackson]

On Saturday 02 July 2005 12:28, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On 7/2/05, Adam Jackson <ajax at nwnk.net> wrote:
> > On Saturday 02 July 2005 12:12, Jon Smirl wrote:
> > > How are we going to sort out multiple implementations of libGL?
> >
> > By not having them.
> >
> > Anything else is a hack.
>
> So no mixing Nvidia/ATI proprietary and DRI cards in the same system?
> ATI is building PCI Express chipsets which explicitly support cards
> from mixed vendors.

You missed it.  libGL, by any sane definition, should be a common object that 
no vendor replaces [1].  That it's not is a major bug.

There's known workarounds for that, aging back at least as far as linuxdoom, 
where the client app dlopen's the libGL it wants.  dlmopen means you get 
separate namespaces for each too, so there's no chance of global symbols 
stomping each other.  So it's a tractable problem above the library layer.

But this is no longer 1995, and that's not the right solution.  Implement it 
in Xgl if you want, but it doesn't belong in the library layer.  Yes, this 
means evangelizing to the vendors to get libGL in a sharable state.

[1] - excluding things like early support for new extensions, of course.

- ajax
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-egl/attachments/20050702/93337a65/attachment.pgp