On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Luca Barbieri <l...@luca-barbieri.com> wrote: > It is implemented by adding a new depth/stencil native attachment. > While depth seems to work even without this, due to the Mesa state tracker > creating it itself, this is the way other DRI2 drivers work and might work > better in some cases. > If we pass to validate a non-existent attachment or > NATIVE_ATTACHMENT_DEPTH_STENCIL: for a surface without a depth/stencil > format, we simply return 0 rather than asserting. This simplifies the common > code. I left out depth/stencil attachment because I could not think of a good reason for it. Do you have an example that it is better to ask the display server for a depth/stencil buffer than asking the pipe driver?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Mesa3d-dev mailing list Mesa3d-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mesa3d-dev
