On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Chia-I Wu <olva...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Chia-I Wu <o...@lunarg.com>
>
> The idea is that DRI driver, libGL and libOSMesa are libraries that can
> be independently enabled, yet --with-driver does not allow us to easily
> do that, if not impossible. This also matches what
> --enable-{egl,xorg,d3d1x} do for the respective libraries.
I haven't read this in any detail, but I definitely like the idea.
When I originally wrote all this, I struggled to coordinate DRI vs.
GLX, and I didn't really bother with the EGL code that was mostly
experimental. This is much more coherently structured.
> There are two libGL providers: Xlib-based and DRI-based. They cannot
> coexist. To be able to choose between them, --enable-xlib-glx is also
> added.
This is the only part that kind of bugs me. It seems to me that the
--enable-dri and --enable-xlib-glx options aren't really symmetric. I
believe you'd need this to be --enable-dri-glx to really act as a
provider. I can see why you didn't do that since dri is a "provider"
to many of the APIs and would require a lot more hacking of
configure.ac. Is my understanding of that correct? I'm not as familiar
with the newer non-GL Mesa components.
--
Dan
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
