brian.paul at tungstengraphics.com
Thu Jun 9 08:07:54 PDT 2005
David Reveman wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 11:06 -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
>>David Reveman wrote:
>>>I've implemented "render texture"-like support in Xgl. I've used the
>>>GLX_MESA_render_texture name for now but I'm not even sure that we want
>>>to call it something with render_texture.
>>This came up tangentally in the ARB superbuffers group. Basically,
>>*_render_texture is a misnomer. You're not rendering to a texture at
>>all. You're texturing from a drawable.
>>In any case, I don't think adding another *_render_texture extension is
>>the right way to go. Even before the superbuffers group got started,
>>the ARB dumped the idea of doing a GLX_ARB_render_texture extension.
>>I'll have to think about it, but it seems like it should be possible to
>>layer a window-system extension on GL_EXT_framebuffer_object to achieve
>>this same result.
That's what I was thinking. GL_EXT_framebuffer_object is the way of
the future (it'll probably be in OpenGL 2.1).
Isn't it possible to implement top-level windows and pixmaps and
pbuffers all with framebuffer objects? I haven't considered this in
detail but it seems feasible.
Framebuffer objects are also more flexible than conventional drawing
surfaces since you can attach/detach renderbuffers (color, depth,
stencil, etc) on the fly. That might be handy someday.
> As you said *_render_texture is really about texturing from a drawable
> and that's exactly what we like to do. GL_EXT_framebuffer_object is not
> about texturing, hence having a dependency on GL_EXT_framebuffer_object
> for doing this seems like a bad idea to me.
>>Also, I'm pretty sure that ATI ships a version of this in their drivers,
>>and I think Nvidia might as well.
Do you mean GL_*_render_texture or GL_EXT_framebuffer_object? I don't
recall seeing the former in either NVIDIA's or ATI's driver.
More information about the xorg