On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 01:26:53PM -0400, David Reveman wrote:
| On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 12:03 -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
| > In general, the whole concept of programmable graphics hardware is
| > not addressed in APIs like xlib and Cairo. This is a very important
| > point. A major new GPU feature, pro
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 01:48:11PM -0400, Jim Gettys wrote:
| Certainly replicating OpenGL 2.0's programmability through Render makes
| no sense at all to me (or most others, I believe/hope). If you want to
| use full use of the GPU, I'm happy to say you should be using OpenGL.
When expressed tha
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 11:29:30AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
| The real goal is to provide a good programming environment for 2D
| applications, not to push some particular low-level graphics library.
I think that's a reasonable goal.
My red flag goes up at the point where the 2D programming en
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 02:06:54PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
| On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 13:06 -0700, Allen Akin wrote:
| > ...
|
| Right, the goal is to have only one driver for the hardware, whether an
| X server for simple 2D only environments or a GL driver for 2D/3D
| environments. ...
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:11:12PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
| Allen Akin wrote:
| > Jon's right about this: If you can accelerate a given simple function
| > (blending, say) for a 2D driver, you can accelerate that same function
| > in a Mesa driver for a comparable amount
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:59:23PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
|
| Yeah, two systems, but (I hope) only one used for each card. So far, I'm
| not sure of the value of attempting to provide a mostly-software GL
| implementation in place of existing X drivers.
For the short term it's valuable for t
6 matches
Mail list logo
