On 22/11/18 22:33, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > El jueves, 22 de noviembre de 2018 15:37:29 -03 Dmitry Shachnev escribió: >> Hi all! >> >> The Qt framework can be built either with “desktop” OpenGL, or with OpenGL >> ES support. At the moment we are building it with OpenGL ES on armel and >> armhf, and with desktop OpenGL on all other architectures > > Maybe we missed to properly explain the main point of this change: currently > most arm64 boards are using software rasterization because their video cards > do not support Desktop OpenGL.
I am not sure that is correct. I certainly don't agree... There is no special case here. If you have a video card in your ARM64 PC then it is likely the same video card that you have for an AMD64 PC - i.e. it is an off the shelf PCIe card. Now it is correct that there is a large number of ARM64 based SoC solutions out there with an embedded GPU - these are aimed mainly at the mobile market (but as the computational power in these SoCs increases we are already seeing that is enough for a lot of peoples 'PC' needs) I guess what I am trying to say here is the GPU architecture is NOT tied to the CPU architecture. If we switch to GLES then most amr64 boards > will be able to render using their video hardware, thus greatly improving > speed to the point of being actually usable for some stuff. > > I imagine (but would *love* hard data) that any PCI video card added to an > arm64 machine will probably also support GLES, so they will still have use. > So <sarcasm> any PCI video card added to s/amr64/AMD64 machine will probably also support GLES, so they will still have use. OK that is true - lets enact this across ALL architectures, but I suspect that there may be a bit of pushback from the AMD64 heavy graphic users... </sarcasm> > But one thing is for sure: it's not a decision in which everyone wins, so we > are trying to make a decision on which *most* of our users wins. > > Agreed Is there any possible way to support *BOTH* OpenGL / OpenGLES? Mutually exclusive from an install POV, but give the end user the choice which to install? Why should we have one Architecture forced down a path different to another architecture? /Andy