[Fwd: Re: CVS Update: xc (branch: trunk)]

[Matthias Hopf]

> > Unfortunately the problem remains for all the 100% minus one GLX
> > applications out there in the world - by modifying glxgears you have 1)
> > altered the behaviour of an application people use as a known quantity
> > debugging GL installations and 2) hidden only trivially a real problem
> > with indirect rendering in Xorg.
> > 
> > Adding a glFinish() after glXSwapBuffers() is as bad a hack as an
> > XSync() in the same spot, and for much the same reasons.
> 
> OK, what else should I do here ? There have been several complaints that
> glxgears current (X11R6.8.x) behaviour is broken (to a point where it's
> inclusion into a distribution has been rejected) so I fix is needed. As

Why do you think that a fix is needed for glxgears? It is not
'productive' application (at least I cannot imagine a productive use),
but a showcase. And a very efficient one, that is, because it shows that
the Xserver has some unwanted 'features' right now as it is not very
responsive when glxgears is run.

So I personally would opt against changing gears as the program is a
nice testcase for one particular type of OpenGL application.
Or we change glxgears and additionally ship Keith's killer application ;)

Matthias

-- 
Matthias Hopf <mhopf at suse.de>      /--       /--  /--         mat at mshopf.de
Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg    \-\  | |  \-\  |--         www.mshopf.de
Phone +49-911-74053-715            --/  \_/  --/  \--  labs