On 06/02/2012 23:14, Carl Worth wrote: > On 2012-02-04, Jon TURNEY wrote: >> It looks like these error messages will always be emitted when >> software-direct >> and indirect are the only paths available (e.g. when ./configured with >> --with-dri-drivers=swrast or --disable-driglx-direct). > > Thanks for sharing your concern, Jon. I certainly don't want to > increase unwanted error-message spew. > > Checking the code, the case of --disable-driglx-direct is already > fine. All of these error messages are in C files that are already > protected by: > > #if defined(GLX_DIRECT_RENDERING) > > so this code won't even get compiled if direct rendering is disabled. > > As to swrast being the only driver available, that one is a bit > trickier to detect. If the X server tells Mesa that the hardware wants > a driver named "i965_dri.so", then Mesa is going to try to load that > driver, (and will not be able to distinguish between the cases of "I > intentionally never compiled that driver" vs. "I had compiled that > driver, but unintentionally deleted it"). > > But I imagine that anybody that *is* intentionally using > --with-dri-drivers=swrast is already arranging it so that the X server > never asks Mesa to load a driver like "i965" anyway, (for example, by > using the "vesa" driver or whatever"). > > So, I don't think there will be any undesired spew.
Okay. Yes, I hadn't absorbed (and it's a bit clearer in the revised form) that these errors are reporting "x failed to load" rather than "y is loading (implying something went wrong with x)" :-) Thanks for checking. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
