ok Bjorn,
I think I got it. Thanks again for the info.
I went to developer.intel.com and read about the i830 chipset and, like
you said the 830M and 830MG have an integrated graphics chipset, where
the 830MP does not (I have a radeon :) ).
So...
In the detection / initialization
Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
ok Bjorn,
I think I got it. Thanks again for the info.
I went to developer.intel.com and read about the i830 chipset and, like
you said the 830M and 830MG have an integrated graphics chipset, where
the 830MP does not (I have a radeon :) ).
So...
Hello
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 10:13:41AM +0100, stephane conversy wrote:
I wonder what's going on with fbdri (http://fbdri.sf.net).
Is it stuck ?
if so is it because of a lack of interest, a lack of developers, or because
it's too cumbersome to do ?
You'll need to ask over on their lists, this
Get it at http://ltswww.epfl.ch/~aspert/patches/patch-agp_i830mp-2.4.16
Nicolas,
Hey! Thanks! Where were you last week!? Your patch looks like you
know what you're doing, whereas I just read the developer docs and
hacked until it worked.
You caught me just before sending to
Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
Nicolas,
Hey! Thanks! Where were you last week!? Your patch looks like you
know what you're doing, whereas I just read the developer docs and
hacked until it worked.
I was here ;-) but I saw no message containing sthg about i830 posted on
dri-devel ...
I think the point is (but I could be wrong) whether this is
user-configurable without recoding/recompiling anything, and it seems the
answer is no.
That's bad. Definitely this is not high-priority issue, but it would be
nice to have ability to enable/disable extensions without recompiling
Alexander Stohr wrote:
possibly i am thinking a bit more practical: - the number of pages
should never go negative, so why do we need the sign? - there is no
reason why the number of pages should get limited to i.e. 2 GB
instead of 4 GB on 32 bit machines.
I think Phil *meant*
Leif Delgass wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Brian Paul wrote:
Sergey V. Udaltsov wrote:
Hi all
Is it possible to turn on/off some particular GL extenstions in Mach64
driver? Is mesa.conf in any help here? I would like to play with
texture-related extensions (probable,
On 12 Dec 2001, Sergey V. Udaltsov wrote:
I think the point is (but I could be wrong) whether this is
user-configurable without recoding/recompiling anything, and it seems the
answer is no.
That's bad. Definitely this is not high-priority issue, but it would be
nice to have ability to
Any info (or references to documents in XFree tree) would be highly
appreciated...
Finally, I managed to get and build (and even run) mach64 branch. Thanks
to everyone who helped me. Now I use not Jose's binaries but the ones
built on my own system. Nothing has changed (what a surprize!:) on
Sure, an app can always elect whether or not it uses particular extensions.
Maybe I'm missing your point.
An app? Probably. But some particular (very nice, BTW) apps still very
dumb in terms of configuration so I'd like to have ability to turn
extensions on/off myself, without modifying the app
Why force any application to implement some more or less wide
set of external shell varibles to query while the same is much
easier to maintain if its part of a gatekeeper library?
Exactly! That's what I meant!
Sergey
___
Dri-devel mailing list
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:36:10PM +0100, Alexander Stohr wrote:
- the number of pages should never go negative, so why do we need the sign?
- there is no reason why the number of pages should get limited to i.e.
2 GB instead of 4 GB on 32 bit machines.
But we're talking page count, not byte
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:36:10PM +0100, Alexander Stohr wrote:
Suggestion:
typedef unsigned intelcount_t;
or
#define elcount_t unsigned int
Ack. Don't do that.
-- Gareth
___
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:30:56PM +, Sergey V. Udaltsov wrote:
Why force any application to implement some more or less wide
set of external shell varibles to query while the same is much
easier to maintain if its part of a gatekeeper library?
Exactly! That's what I meant!
Quake3
But we're talking page count, not byte count. So signed vs unsigned is
something like having 8 vs 16 TERRABYTES addressable.
Personally, I dont think that should be an issue :-)
well estimated. ;-)
consider such a coding:
size_t size_of_one_member, total_size_in_bytes;
int
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 09:46:23PM +0100, Alexander Stohr wrote:
[phil brown wrote]
So allowing signed int for pagecounts, means you can allow -1
as a flag for uninitialized or something.
a special value of zero is sufficient here.
well, yeah, pagecount=0 is fine for an error flag :-)
17 matches
Mail list logo
