On 31 October 2016 at 19:20, Adam Jackson <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2016-10-28 at 17:11 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: >> > On 19 October 2016 at 18:39, Adam Jackson <a...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > The "implementation" in Mesa would be __glXBindTexImageEXT. One could >> > argue that dispatch_* could be smart enough to recognize their own >> > dispatch tables, skip the glvnd call to ->fetchDispatchEntry in >> > __FETCH_FUNCTION_PTR, and call the Mesa implementation directly. But >> > GLX function calls are not exactly hot paths, and I'm not sure the >> > complexity would be worth it. >> > >> >> Personally I agree, yet the rest (past this piece) of GLVND shows that >> one is quite concerned with not making those slow. > > With not making _GL_ calls slow, sure. Having already spent that effort > one might as well use the same technique for GLX though. > What I mean is - on one end it reuses the same technique for GLX to speed things up, on the other X indirections, which mitigate much/all of the improvements achieved.
Seems like I'm the only one who sees those are contradictory. Either way - that can be looked at a later stage. >> One nitpick: >> Can we drop glXGetScreenDriver all together. Last time I've looked it >> had zero users*, it has no spec and GLVND wasn't generating an entry >> point/dispatch for it. > > One user, xdriinfo(1), which is admittedly pretty useless. But the > glvnd code in mesa definitely implements dispatch for it (libglvnd > itself does not, but is not expected to). > libglvnd doesn't dispatch to it one cannot really reach it, correct ? Thanks Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
