Xgl page - http://www.freedesktop.org/Software/Xgl

[Michel Dänzer]

On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 13:26 -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
> Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > 
> > So how are GLX_SGIX_fbconfig and GLX_SGIX_pbuffer supposed to be
> > advertised and picked up by glitz if they're only supported on the
> > client side?
> 
> If they're only supported on the client side, they're *not* supported. 
> If the server can't handle a glXCreateGLXPbufferSGIX request, there's 
> not much you can do.
> 
> Basically, this is why I stopped working on the new memory manager.  It 
> is 100% legal (and *must* be supported) for a client to create a 
> direct-rendering context and an indirect-rendering context and "share" a 
> pbuffer between them (just like can be done with a window).  

So that's possible, but does it make any sense? :) And does it preclude
clients that only need them for direct rendered contexts from using them
when they're only supported on the client side? And does this even work
for windows now?

> Until the same driver can be loaded on the client-side & the server-side 
> (or there is no client-side driver), pbuffers are DOA.

Why can't the client-side and server-side implementations cooperate on
this even if they're not the same? Even if the server side can load the
same drivers as the client side, there will be no guarantee that the
client side loads (exactly) the same driver as the server side did.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer      |     Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer
Libre software enthusiast    |   http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer