On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 10:30:08AM -0600, Peter Seebach wrote:
> For that matter, is the fxp still the most-recommended driver on Alpha?
It *never* has been the recommended driver on FreeBSD/Alpha. The fxp
driver has had issues on Alpha for a long time. Andrew will fix
something with it, then i
Hello!
I'm quite interested in having true 3D hardware acceleration on my ASUS
AGP-V3800Magic video card based on TNT2 M64 chip, while running
XFree86-4.0.2 on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE.
I've been searching USENET, mail-archives, web, and all I was able to find
was:
* information on www.nvidia.
Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> I'm quite interested in having true 3D hardware acceleration on my ASUS
> AGP-V3800Magic video card based on TNT2 M64 chip, while running
> XFree86-4.0.2 on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE.
>
Me too
3D acceleration (or the lack thereof) is supposed to be one of the
> I think Mark Murray is still sitting on the patch I did for this very
> thing. Check the -hackers mail archives. It was about 2-3 Months
> ago, so it may not even patch cleanly anymore against -CURRENT.
I committed this today!
Apologies for the delay.
M
--
Mark Murray
Warning: this .sig is
On 11 Mar 2001, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Richard Hodges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Rafael Tonin wrote:
> > > Anyone knows how to get this card to work?
> > Go into your BIOS config and turn off the option
> > for "PLUG & PLAY OS". It should be with the PCI menu.
>
Howdy,
fbsd:~> uname -a
FreeBSD playground 3.4-RELEASE FreeBSD 3.4-RELEASE #1: Sun Mar 26
16:56:35 PST
2000 root@:/usr/src/sys/compile/McKERNEL i386
>From dmesg:
CPU: Pentium/P55C (167.05-MHz 586-class CPU)
Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x543 Stepping = 3
Features=0x8001bf
rea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I'm writing a kernel module which uses the function VOP_OPEN. When I try
to compile my module vnode_if.h complains:
vnode_if.h:177: warning: inlining failed in call to `VOP_OPEN'
binctl.c:35: warning: called from here
vnode_if.h:206: warning:
> 3D acceleration (or the lack thereof) is supposed to be one of the
> reasons why XFree 336 is still the standard version delivered for
> FreeBSD.
It is, at least for me. I've been waiting for XFree86 4.0.x to come
up to the same FPS performance numbers since it came out.
> I have not searched
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> > 3D acceleration (or the lack thereof) is supposed to be one of the
> > reasons why XFree 336 is still the standard version delivered for
> > FreeBSD.
>
> It is, at least for me. I've been waiting for XFree86 4.0.x to come
> up to the same FPS perfo
On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 11:01:07AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> fbsd:~> uname -a
> FreeBSD playground 3.4-RELEASE FreeBSD 3.4-RELEASE #1: Sun Mar 26
At first time, you must up to RELENG_3.
Then, if it don't help, you must up to RELENG_4 (via RELEASE_4_0_0 or
other, please see ha
hi
all i can say, freebsd 3.1 to 4.2 is running stable and fine ;)
on k6-2 400 and 500 !!!
i am got it running here on my maschine.
--
gruesse
joerg "joerch" buechner
mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
subject: i know fraggin nothin, bastich!
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "
On 11-Mar-01 Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> > It is, at least for me. I've been waiting for XFree86 4.0.x to come
> > up to the same FPS performance numbers since it came out.
> So, are you saying that 3.3.6 performs better than 4.0.2? If this is true
>
> So, are you saying that 3.3.6 performs better than 4.0.2? If this is true
Absolutely. At least 2X the frame rate using the same OpenGL app in
each case.
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Hello,
Could anybody advise me on the possiblity of having greater than
2GB per process on FreeBSD. I have tried increasing the limit beyond this
and the kernel compiles successfully - however libc causes every process
to segfault. I am assuming that just recompiling the C library wouldn'
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> > So, are you saying that 3.3.6 performs better than 4.0.2? If this is true
>
> Absolutely. At least 2X the frame rate using the same OpenGL app in
> each case.
>
But, this is when using hw accel on 3.3.6 vs. software "accel" on 4.0.2,
right, like
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Porting NVidia linux kernel modules to FreeBSD
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:17:44 +0600 (NOVT)
> But, this is when using hw accel on 3.3.6 vs. software "accel" on 4.0.2,
No.
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsub
On 12-Mar-01 Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> From: Alexey Dokuchaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Porting NVidia linux kernel modules to FreeBSD
> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:17:44 +0600 (NOVT)
>
> > But, this is when using hw accel on 3.3.6 vs. software "accel" on 4.0.2,
>
> No.
What 3d acce
>
> > But, this is when using hw accel on 3.3.6 vs. software "accel" on 4.0.2,
>
> No.
>
Meaning, 3.3.6 + utah_glx outperforms by a factor of two 4.0.2 + DRI?!
- danfe
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 21:37:28 -0800, Farooq Mela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jordan DeLong wrote:
>> I was thinking of just getting a sintable array and making a few simple
>> functions, so the whole of libm doesn't need to be statically linked into the
>> module (from my understanding, once loaded
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> >
> > > But, this is when using hw accel on 3.3.6 vs. software "accel" on 4.0.2,
> >
> > No.
> >
>
> Meaning, 3.3.6 + utah_glx outperforms by a factor of two 4.0.2 + DRI?!
>
Or, even better, 4.0.2 + "suppose-we-managed-to-port-it nvidia kernel
On 12-Mar-01 Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > Meaning, 3.3.6 + utah_glx outperforms by a factor of two 4.0.2 + DRI?!
> >
>
> Or, even better, 4.0.2 + "suppose-we-managed-to-port-it nvidia kernel
> module" + nvidia binary 'nvidia' replacement module for XFree-4's 'nv'
> driver? I mean, will 336/
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>
> On 12-Mar-01 Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > > Meaning, 3.3.6 + utah_glx outperforms by a factor of two 4.0.2 + DRI?!
> > >
> >
> > Or, even better, 4.0.2 + "suppose-we-managed-to-port-it nvidia kernel
> > module" + nvidia binary 'nvidia' replacem
On 12-Mar-01 Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> That's what I thought, but Jordan's email really made me doubt that my
> vision of things is correct. Particulary, I don't quite understand this
> one:
>
> Statement #1: Utah-GLX doesn't direct render
>
> Statement #2: From man nv(4) of X
* Ian Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010311 16:14] wrote:
>
> Hello,
> Could anybody advise me on the possiblity of having greater than
> 2GB per process on FreeBSD. I have tried increasing the limit beyond this
> and the kernel compiles successfully - however libc causes every process
> to
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>
> On 12-Mar-01 Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > That's what I thought, but Jordan's email really made me doubt that my
> > vision of things is correct. Particulary, I don't quite understand this
> > one:
> >
> > Statement #1: Utah-GLX doesn't
- Original Message -
From: "Alfred Perlstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ian Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 23:41
Subject: Re: Greater than 2GB per process
> * Ian Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010311 16:14] wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> > Cou
* Joseph Gleason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010311 20:48] wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Alfred Perlstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Ian Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 23:41
> Subject: Re: Greater than 2GB per process
>
>
> >
On 2001-03-10 21:56 -0600, Peter Seebach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Out of idle curiousity, has the NIH syndrome died down enough that
> it might hypothetically be possible for the three major *BSD camps
> to cooperate on this kind of thing? Form an organization the purpose
> of which is to ge
On 2001-03-10 13:36 -0500, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> > A few of us were talking on IRC tonight about how cool it would be to
> > have an httpfs filesystem -- then it occurred to me we almost have
> > this already, in the form of the (
Alfred Perlstein ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Joseph Gleason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010311 20:48] wrote:
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Alfred Perlstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Ian Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 23
30 matches
Mail list logo
