On 06/16/2011 07:14 AM, Brian Paul wrote: > On 06/15/2011 06:34 PM, Chad Versace wrote: >> If a renderbuffer wraps multiple renderbuffers, then Unwrapped points to >> the them. >> >> For example, if hardware requires separate depth and stencil buffers >> (X8_Z24 and S8), then glRenderbufferStorage(GL_DEPTH24_STENCIL8) may >> create a fake S8_Z24 renderbuffer for which Unwrapped[BUFFER_DEPTH] and >> Unwrapped[BUFFER_STENCIL] point to the real X8_Z24 and S8 renderbuffers. >> >> Alter the following function to take Unwrapped into account: >> _mesa_framebuffer_renderbuffer >> _mesa_update_depth_buffer >> _mesa_update_stencil_buffer >> _mesa_reference_renderbuffer > > Chad, could you give a bit of background on the big picture here? When/why do > we need to represent separate depth and stencil > buffers as a unified depth+stencil buffer?
Like Ian said, we have future hardware that requires a separate stencil buffer. But we still need to accomodate apps that use renderbuffers with format GL_DEPTH_STENCIL. > I'd like to move away from the whole renderbuffer/wrapper business. As I > mentioned the other day, I'd like to move to a simple > map/unmap model to accesss renderbuffer (and texture) data. Mesa would > generally see the buffers as-is without any kind of > wrappers/converters. If a driver needed to change the appearance of > buffer(s) to core Mesa, it would have to do the data > munging inside map()/unmap(). Would that approach work with the problem > you're solving with unwrappers? > > Thanks. > > -Brian I think the problems I'm solving are tractable within that approach. The solution would involve defing custom renderbuffer accessors (GetRow, PutRow) for the fake S8_Z24 buffer. I'll give that a try today and see how it works. -- Chad Versace c...@chad-versace.us _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
