Felix Kühling wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 12:00:50 -0600
Keith Whitwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Romanick wrote:
Ian Romanick wrote:
I'm also having second thoughts about allowing drivers to add function
calls to the GLX dispatch table. This is a global table that has no
way to identify the
Am 2003.08.05 22:45:36 +0200 schrieb(en) Ian Romanick:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
I'm happy to drop these once we have identified implemented a suitable
replacement.
There are two ways to go on this. One way is to make a new
GLX_MESA_memory_allocate extension that just extends the
Ian Romanick wrote:
Ian Romanick wrote:
I'm also having second thoughts about allowing drivers to add function
calls to the GLX dispatch table. This is a global table that has no
way to identify the owner of a dispatch function. This
functionality is currently only used by a single feature
Ian Romanick wrote:
I'm also having second thoughts about allowing drivers to add function
calls to the GLX dispatch table. This is a global table that has no way
to identify the owner of a dispatch function. This functionality is
currently only used by a single feature of the r200 driver.
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 12:00:50 -0600
Keith Whitwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Romanick wrote:
Ian Romanick wrote:
I'm also having second thoughts about allowing drivers to add function
calls to the GLX dispatch table. This is a global table that has no
way to identify the owner of
Ian Romanick wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
I'm happy to drop these once we have identified implemented a
suitable replacement.
There are two ways to go on this. One way is to make a new
GLX_MESA_memory_allocate extension that just extends the existing
glXAllocateMemoryNV, glXFreeMemoryNV,
Keith Whitwell wrote:
I'm happy to drop these once we have identified implemented a suitable
replacement.
There are two ways to go on this. One way is to make a new
GLX_MESA_memory_allocate extension that just extends the existing
glXAllocateMemoryNV, glXFreeMemoryNV, and glXGetAGPOffsetMESA
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 17:57:14 -0700
Ian Romanick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Felix Kühling wrote:
Hi,
I attached a first attempt on a patch that makes client-side extensions
aware of multiple screens and will allow extensions to be enabled
conditionally by the drivers. This is a result
Felix Kühling wrote:
The proposed changes break binary compatibility. The patch ignores that
for now. As this API hasn't been exposed in any XFree releases yet
(according to Ian), we may get away with it. ;-)
I thought of a way (that should have been obvious) to prevent any binary
compatability
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 05:57:14PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
| ...
| If we take away the ability to add functions to the GLX function table,
| is it really useful for drivers to be able to add new extensions at all?
| That would also remove the need for the force_client parameter to
|
Hi,
I attached a first attempt on a patch that makes client-side extensions
aware of multiple screens and will allow extensions to be enabled
conditionally by the drivers. This is a result of the thread
Observations about dynamic extension registration. It compiles but the
drivers aren't changed
Felix Kühling wrote:
Hi,
I attached a first attempt on a patch that makes client-side extensions
aware of multiple screens and will allow extensions to be enabled
conditionally by the drivers. This is a result of the thread
Observations about dynamic extension registration. It compiles but the
12 matches
Mail list logo
