On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 12:09:02AM +0100, Jos� Fonseca wrote: > On 2002.06.17 23:19 Keith Whitwell wrote: > > > >> > >> We could overcome the GLX difficulties in the same way we do now in > >> libGL with the direct rendering. > >> > >> But I still don't understand why vertex arrays would be such a problem > >> over shared memory. Aren't they basically just readed and transformed > >> into Mesa's vertex buffers? Could't the OpenGL drivers just read these > >> vertex arrays directly of the client memory space from the X process? > > > > There's no indication of the 'top' of the vertex buffer, so you don't > > know how much to transfer. There's no semantics to tell you whether > > the vertex buffer contents have changed, so you don't know how often to > > transfer. > > But why even transfer in the first place? Why not simply map parts of the > vertex buffers into the X memory space as they are needed, or is there any > impossibility on the Linux architecture to do that?
This is an old message, but I didn't see a reply to this point. The reason is that the indirect rendering path they've been talking about is the *same* one used by remote clients. A client running on a different box can't directly map anything, so the indirect clients on the same box (as the X server) have to follow the same rules. -- Tell that to the Marines! ------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/ _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
