interpreting glxinfo's output

andrew rader andrew.r.rader at
Wed Mar 26 17:19:16 PDT 2008

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Dan Nicholson <dbn.lists at> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 5:13 PM, andrew rader <andrew.r.rader at> wrote:
> > thanks for the fast reply,
> >
> >  that does indeed answer my question, with one additional question. The
> >  last post has the general extension list described:
> >
> >  "general: and that's the resulting supported GLX extensions, depending
> >  what the server and client sides support."
> >
> >  would it be better to just say "general is a list of the extensions
> >  that the driver supports"? since both the client and server (in my
> >  case) support TFP, but "general" doesn't, is it the driver that is
> >  missing this extension?
> Actually, it's all three (this just came up the other day): client and
> server both handle the protocol and the driver implements it.
> --
> Dan

ah ok, so in my case the server/client are both saying "we can support
drivers that provide the TFP extension" but my driver doesn't support
it, so I can't use it (unless I use indirect method mentioned

does LIBGL_ALWAYS_INDIRECT=1 cause a different driver to be used, one
that does implement TFP?


More information about the xorg mailing list