Re: [x11drv] d3d stencil support
Hi!
Oliver Stieber wrote:
+if (visual == NULL) {
+/* fallback to a 1 bit stencil (opengl states that at least 1 bit of
stencil must be provided for on of the available configurations) */
+WARN(Failed to get a visual with at least 8 bits of stencil\n);
+int dblBuf2[] =
{GLX_RGBA,GLX_DEPTH_SIZE,16,GLX_STENCIL_SIZE,1,GLX_DOUBLEBUFFER,None};
+
+wine_tsx11_lock();
+visual = pglXChooseVisual(display, DefaultScreen(display), dblBuf2);
+wine_tsx11_unlock();
+if (visual == NULL) {
+/* This should only happen if we cannot fidn a match with a depth
size 16 */
+FIXME(Failed to find a suitable visual\n);
+}
+}
It's always nice to have a fallback, but in real life I've
never seen PC hardware (even back to the 90s) which supports
a 1-bit stencil buffer and not a 8-bit stencil buffer, so
this may be over-redundant. (Would be interested in hearing
of any consumer hardware which only does a 1-bit stencil.)
Regards,
--adam
Re: [x11drv] d3d stencil support
On 04.07.2005 02:21, Oliver Stieber wrote: Hi, This patch makes sure that the OpenGL visual created for a window has a stencil buffer. This is a requirement for stencil buffer support in d3d. Hm, isn't it possible that on some pathetic hardware or when lower color depths are used (e.g. 16bpp) stencil is not supported and that software emulation instead of hardware acceleration may be used? Wouldn't it be better to somehow query for a stencil buffer only when really needed? Just a thought. -f.r.
Re: [x11drv] d3d stencil support
--- Frank Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 04.07.2005 02:21, Oliver Stieber wrote: Hi, This patch makes sure that the OpenGL visual created for a window has a stencil buffer. This is a requirement for stencil buffer support in d3d. Hm, isn't it possible that on some pathetic hardware or when lower color depths are used (e.g. 16bpp) stencil is not supported and that software emulation instead of hardware acceleration may be used? Wouldn't it be better to somehow query for a stencil buffer only when really needed? Just a thought. OpenGL requires that a stencil is supported for at least on of the modes, the problem with creating a stencil buffer only when needed is that the windows and hence the visual ID is created before directx is loaded and I don't think that directx should be messing with anything that's come out of x11drv just incase it causes regression somewhere else. There it should only be the additional memory usage that causes a negitive impact on performance if the driver uses software for stencil buffers and the stencil buffer isn't used. -f.r. ___ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Re: [x11drv] d3d stencil support
--- Adam D. Moss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
Oliver Stieber wrote:
+if (visual == NULL) {
+/* fallback to a 1 bit stencil (opengl
states that at least 1 bit of stencil must be
provided for on of the available configurations) */
+WARN(Failed to get a visual with at
least 8 bits of stencil\n);
+int dblBuf2[] =
{GLX_RGBA,GLX_DEPTH_SIZE,16,GLX_STENCIL_SIZE,1,GLX_DOUBLEBUFFER,None};
+
+wine_tsx11_lock();
+visual = pglXChooseVisual(display,
DefaultScreen(display), dblBuf2);
+wine_tsx11_unlock();
+if (visual == NULL) {
+/* This should only happen if we
cannot fidn a match with a depth size 16 */
+FIXME(Failed to find a suitable
visual\n);
+}
+}
It's always nice to have a fallback, but in real
life I've
never seen PC hardware (even back to the 90s) which
supports
a 1-bit stencil buffer and not a 8-bit stencil
buffer, so
this may be over-redundant. (Would be interested in
hearing
of any consumer hardware which only does a 1-bit
stencil.)
The fallback is there because 1 bit stencil is the
minimum required by the opengl specification, so it is
possible that somewhere there is a driver that only
supports 1 bit stencil.
Oliver.
Regards,
--adam
___
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Re: [x11drv] d3d stencil support
Adam D. Moss wrote:
Hi!
Oliver Stieber wrote:
+if (visual == NULL) {
+/* fallback to a 1 bit stencil (opengl states that at least
1 bit of stencil must be provided for on of the available
configurations) */
+WARN(Failed to get a visual with at least 8 bits of
stencil\n);
+int dblBuf2[] =
{GLX_RGBA,GLX_DEPTH_SIZE,16,GLX_STENCIL_SIZE,1,GLX_DOUBLEBUFFER,None};
+
+wine_tsx11_lock();
+visual = pglXChooseVisual(display, DefaultScreen(display),
dblBuf2);
+wine_tsx11_unlock();
+if (visual == NULL) {
+/* This should only happen if we cannot fidn a match
with a depth size 16 */
+FIXME(Failed to find a suitable visual\n);
+}
+}
It's always nice to have a fallback, but in real life I've
never seen PC hardware (even back to the 90s) which supports
a 1-bit stencil buffer and not a 8-bit stencil buffer, so
this may be over-redundant. (Would be interested in hearing
of any consumer hardware which only does a 1-bit stencil.)
Sun ELC. Not exactly consumer hardware though.
regards,
Jakob
Re: [x11drv] d3d stencil support
Oliver Stieber wrote: The fallback is there because 1 bit stencil is the minimum required by the opengl specification, so it is possible that somewhere there is a driver that only supports 1 bit stencil. I understood that, I was simply saying that I don't think there's ever been a consumer graphics card that did only 1-7 bits -- they seem to universally do 0 or 8 bits of stencil (even the software-renderers), so the fallback is likely a waste of breath, though I appreciate caution. Perhaps more to the point, does D3D only guarantee a 1-bit stencil buffer? A 1-bit stencil buffer (most especially one without GL_EXT_stencil_wrap) is of very, very limited use. I somewhat expect that no D3D applications (except maybe, just maybe, some very simple test-apps) will actually operate correctly with a 1-bit unwrapped stencil. Cheers, --adam
Re: [x11drv] d3d stencil support
--- Adam D. Moss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oliver Stieber wrote: The fallback is there because 1 bit stencil is the minimum required by the opengl specification, so it is possible that somewhere there is a driver that only supports 1 bit stencil. I understood that, I was simply saying that I don't think there's ever been a consumer graphics card that did only 1-7 bits -- they seem to universally do 0 or 8 bits of stencil (even the software-renderers), so the fallback is likely a waste of breath, though I appreciate caution. Perhaps more to the point, does D3D only guarantee a 1-bit stencil buffer? A 1-bit stencil buffer (most especially one without GL_EXT_stencil_wrap) is of very, very limited use. I somewhat expect that no D3D applications (except maybe, just maybe, some very simple test-apps) will actually operate correctly with a 1-bit unwrapped stencil. I haven't come across any yet, but I've mainly been concentrating on d3d9. there's a good chance that some older applications may use a 1bit stencil to speed things up. applications that would generally be regarded as 2d can make use of a 1bit stencil buffer for masks and screen wipes. e.g. http://www.mvps.org/directx/articles/wipe/ http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/directx9_c/directx/graphics/programmingguide/advancedtopics/stencilbuffer/dissolvesfadesandswipes.asp I wouldn't expect someone with hardware that doesn't support 8bit+ stencils to be playing the latest games, but there's potential for them to be using other applications that require a simple stencil buffer, or simple 3D an no stencil at all, in which case they require some kind of fallback. Cheers, --adam ___ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
