On 06/21/2011 10:23 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Die, 2011-06-21 at 10:10 -0600, tom fogal wrote:
On 06/21/2011 01:06 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 13:46 -0600, tom fogal wrote:
Nathan Kidd<nathan...@spicycrypto.ca> writes:
On 11-06-20 02:55 PM, tom fogal wrote:
Nathan Kidd<nathan...@spicycrypto.ca> writes:
[snip]
You are correct, rendering is indirect!
Of course, for indirect rendering every glFoo() function call
needs to be mapped to (GL)X protocol. Protocol exists up to
OpenGL 1.4.
I can always fall back to OSMesa, I suppose :(
Or a software rasterizer libGL / driver which uses direct
rendering. Preferably using llvmpipe for performance.
It was hidden in another part of the thread, but I actually don't
care (much) about performance, as this is for a regression testing
system.
Then you have free choice between llvmpipe or just softpipe (can be
chosen at runtime), or even classic swrast.
Yep. I have used swrast with great effect in the past.
Gallium and OSMesa currently don't mix, though Brian has mentioned once
or twice that it wouldn't be /too/ hard to bring up.
More importantly, though, the issue with direct rendering is that I
need to be able to connect to an X server.
Not sure what you mean by that. If you mean direct rendering requires
a DRI capable X server, that's not true at least for a standalone
software rasterizer libGL.
No, I didn't mean DRI. I mean I need to actually 'xinit' or at least
'X' at some stage or another.
It should work fine with Xvfb or any other X server, using any kind
of display connection.
This thread started because Xvfb isn't offering what I need: GL 2.0. =)
The current software under test considers shaders and VBOs a sine qua non.
Xvfb is actually exactly the kind of thing I want, I just need GL 2 or
appropriate extensions.
If I could get a "direct Xvfb", that sounds like it would do what I need.
-tom
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
