davidr at novell.com
Wed Jun 8 18:12:11 PDT 2005
On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 17:07 -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
> David Reveman wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 11:06 -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
> >>Also, I'm pretty sure that ATI ships a version of this in their drivers,
> >>and I think Nvidia might as well. If we are going to move forward with
> >>this, it would be nice to have all three implementations play nice
> >>together. That would probably mean making this a GLX_EXT instead of
> > Yes, I guess that would be nice.
> > The big difference between GLX_MESA_render_texture and
> > WGL_ARB_render_texture (GLX_ATI_render_texture as well I guess) right
> > now is that MESA_render_texture can be used not only with pbuffers but
> > with any GL drawable. Having support for GLXPixmaps makes it possible to
> > bind redirected windows to textures and that's what we like to do.
> Currently, WGL_ARB_render_texture works by modifying wglCreatePbuffer to
> accept an attribute that says you intend to bind the pbuffer to a
> texture. I see no reason why glXCreateWindow and glXCreatePixmap could
> not get the same treatment. The driver would just have to be careful
> about the fbconfigs that it exports. So, if the driver can't map a
> window to a texture, don't export an fbconfig with both
> BIND_TO_TEXTURE_* set to true and DRAWABLE_TYPE with WINDOW_BIT set.
Makes sense. I was making it harder than necessary.
> The catch to all of this is that it more and more requires GLX 1.3. :(
Yes, I wonder how much work that will be...
> > We can have GLX_EXT_render_texture not support anything else than
> > pbuffers but then we'll need an additional extension for creating a
> > pbuffer from a redirected window or a pixmap. A new attribute for
> > glXCreatePbuffer would probably be enough for such an extension. If we
> > want a GLX_EXT_render_texture this might be a good idea, but do you
> > think Nvidia and ATI really care about a GLX_EXT_render_texture now that
> > we've got GL_EXT_framebuffer_object?
> If we spec it the way I described above, they could all the
> GLX_EXT_render_texture string to their drivers with essentially no
> changes. Whether or not they want to export fbconfigs that allow
> binding of windows or pixmaps to textures will depend 100% on market
> pressure and the required effort.
> > I do hope that they can have the necessary client-side support so that
> > their GL libraries can be used with indirect rendering clients running
> > on top of Xgl that like to use this functionality.
> Hopefully ATI will end up using the "standard" X.org libGL on the
> client-side. Since they use DRI, there shouldn't be any technical
> reason to prevent it (aside from missing functionality that they may
> require). Nvidia, on the other, will have to add that protocol support.
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games. How far can you shotput
> a projector? How fast can you ride your desk chair down the office luge track?
> If you want to score the big prize, get to know the little guy.
> Play to win an NEC 61" plasma display: http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20
> Mesa3d-dev mailing list
> Mesa3d-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
More information about the xorg