[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: State of Linux graphics
    Certainly replicating OpenGL 2.0's programmability through Render makes
    no sense at all to me (or most others, I believe/hope). If you want to
    use full use of the GPU, I'm happy to say you should be using OpenGL.
    - Jim

    On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 23:33 -0700, Allen Akin wrote:
    > On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 01:26:53PM -0400, David Reveman wrote:
    > | On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 12:03 -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
    > | > In general, the whole concept of programmable graphics hardware is
    > | > not addressed in APIs like xlib and Cairo. This is a very important
    > | > point. A major new GPU feature, programmability is simply not
    > | > accessible from the current X APIs. OpenGL exposes this
    > | > programmability via its shader language.
    > |
    > | ... I don't
    > | see why this can't be exposed through the Render extension. ...
    > What has always concerned me about this approach is that when you add
    > enough functionality to Render or some new X extensions to fully exploit
    > previous (much less current and in-development!) generations of GPUs,
    > you've essentially duplicated OpenGL 2.0. You need to identify the
    > resources to be managed (framebuffer objects, vertex objects, textures,
    > programs of several kinds, etc.); explain how they're specified and how
    > they interact and how they're owned/shared; define a vocabulary of
    > commands that operate upon them; think about how those commands are
    > translated and executed on various pieces of hardware; examine the
    > impact of things like graphics context switching on the system
    > architecture; and deal with a dozen other matters that have already been
    > addressed fully or partly in the OpenGL world.
    > I think it makes a lot of sense to leverage the work that's already been
    > done: Take OpenGL as a given, and add extensions for what's missing.
    > Don't create a parallel API that in the long run must develop into
    > something at least as rich as OpenGL was to start with. That costs time
    > and effort, and likely won't be supported by the hardware vendors to the
    > same extent that OpenGL is (thanks to the commercial forces already at
    > work). Let OpenGL do 80% of the job, then work to provide the last 20%,
    > rather than trying to do 100% from scratch.
    > Allen
    > _______________________________________________
    > xorg mailing list

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-08-31 19:50    [W:0.034 / U:6.868 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site