--- Brian Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Any application which depends upon the root window > having particular GLX attributes is in error.
It's a screensaver. Using the root window would seem to be a requirement here. So what you're really saying is "Who cares if you can't perform OpenGL / direct rendering on the root window?". And the answer is "Everyone who runs xscreensaver, for a start!". Do other graphics cards have this problem? > > You have just killed OpenGL screensavers > > with the G400, for example, and goodness knows > > what else. > > *I* did? Give me a break. That's "you" as in "DRI developers". Not "you" personally. (Not to my knowledge, anyway.) > > You can play semantics and say it isn't a bug, > > but it is definitely a regression that will be > > very unpopular with a lot of Matrox users. > > I wouldn't call it a regression either. Did work before, doesn't work now. That's the very *definition* of a regression. > > b) The screensavers don't segfault because there's > > no suitable visual available. They seem to do so > > while trying to activate the indirect rendering > > instead. This is presumably why the rest of the > > OpenGL hacks flash the "libGL error: InitDriver > > failed" message on the screen and then run very > > slowly. And segfaults are always bugs. > It sounds like there might be a broader issue here. > What does 'glxinfo' report? Does glxgears run with > hardware acceleration? $ glxgears -info GL_RENDERER = Mesa DRI G400 20020221 AGP 4x x86/MMX/SSE GL_VERSION = 1.2 Mesa 4.0.4 GL_VENDOR = VA Linux Systems Inc. GL_EXTENSIONS = GL_ARB_multisample GL_ARB_multitexture GL_ARB_texture_compression GL_ARB_texture_env_add GL_ARB_transpose_matrix GL_EXT_abgr GL_EXT_bgra GL_EXT_clip_volume_hint GL_EXT_compiled_vertex_array GL_EXT_packed_pixels GL_EXT_polygon_offset GL_EXT_rescale_normal GL_EXT_texture3D GL_EXT_texture_env_add GL_EXT_texture_object GL_EXT_vertex_array GL_IBM_rasterpos_clip GL_MESA_window_pos GL_NV_texgen_reflection GL_SGIS_generate_mipmap 4155 frames in 5.0 seconds = 831.000 FPS 4122 frames in 5.0 seconds = 824.400 FPS 4116 frames in 5.0 seconds = 823.200 FPS 4099 frames in 5.0 seconds = 819.800 FPS I'm guessing "yes", but then, why wouldn't it? It's not running on the root window. I have already posted the output from glxinfo to this list, together with a back-trace from one of the SIGSEGV cores and the DEBUG output from the mga.o kernel module while running the "atlantis" hack. (Atlantis is one that seems to switch to indirect rendering rather than crashing.) Chris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
