On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:20:58PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > On 11/25/14 10:36 PM, Robert Morell wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 07:26:14PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > >> Covers the current state after commits 99f0365b1fbdfd9238b9f, > >> d0da0e9c3bb8fe0cd4879, & e3aa13b8d63ea2fba6eb4 were all applied. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersm...@oracle.com> > >> --- > >> man/Xserver.man | 10 ++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/man/Xserver.man b/man/Xserver.man > >> index c03830c..69ff626 100644 > >> --- a/man/Xserver.man > >> +++ b/man/Xserver.man > >> @@ -181,6 +181,16 @@ prints a usage message. > >> .B \-I > >> causes all remaining command line arguments to be ignored. > >> .TP 8 > >> +.B \-iglx > >> +Prohibit creating indirect GLX contexts. Indirect GLX is of limited use, > >> +since it only supports up to OpenGL 1.4; it's slower than direct contexts; > > > > Technically, there exists protocol for much if not all of OpenGL 2.1, > > and some extensions beyond that. But not all server and client > > implementations support it... > > Sorry, I copied that from the comments in the commit that actually created the > options, and took Eric's word for it: > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/commit/?id=99f0365b1fbdfd9238b9f5cc28491e4e6c7324f1 > > Would "only fully supports up to OpenGL 1.4, with partial support for > OpenGL 2.1 and some later extensions" be more accurate? Or is there > a better wording someone can think of?
I'm not really sure myself what the extent of official Khronos-sanctioned protocol support is -- it's spread out over a bunch of extensions, and if there is any overall unifying documentation I'm not aware of it. Maybe a more future-proof statement appropriate for the man page would be something like "lacks support for many modern OpenGL features and extensions"? > >> +and it opens a large attack surface for protocol parsing errors. > >> +This is the default unless +iglx is specified, though it may not be > >> honored > >> +by GLX implementations other than the one provided with the X server. > > > > For what it's worth, in case anyone finds this thread in the archives, > > I'll point out that NVIDIA's implementation does honor this option in > > newer drivers, which contain the following entry in the changelog: > > > > * Implemented support for disabling indirect GLX context creation using > > the -iglx option available on X.Org server release 1.16 and newer. > > Note > > that future X.Org server releases may make the -iglx option the > > default. > > To re-enable support for indirect GLX on such servers, use the +iglx > > option. > > That's good - perhaps we can drop that qualification if both NVIDIA & AMD > will be supporting the check in their Xorg 1.17 ABI compatible versions. > > I was thinking of older driver versions when I'd written it, but obviously, > due to ABI changes, there shouldn't be many (any?) GLX implementations that > can both be loaded by Xorg 1.17 and do not support this flag, so I don't > know why I was thinking of that. Yeah, good point. - Robert > > But your text above is still accurate, so other than perhaps softening > > the OpenGL 1.4 limitation, > > > > Reviewed-by: Robert Morell <rmor...@nvidia.com> > > > >> +.TP 8 > >> +.B +iglx > >> +Allow creating indirect GLX contexts. > >> +.TP 8 > >> .B \-maxbigreqsize \fIsize\fP > >> sets the maximum big request to > >> .I size > >> -- > >> 1.7.9.2 > > > -- > -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@oracle.com > Oracle Solaris Engineering - http://blogs.oracle.com/alanc > _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel