Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: LLVMpipe Doesn't Yet Like The GNOME Shell

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    319

    Default

    Its kind of hard to do TFP in a direct rendered context with a sw renderer, since we rely on the drm to share the buffer objects between server/compositor.

    It needs llvmpipe in indirect context + some fixes in the server to do TFP in there.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    291

    Default

    @nanonyme yep I agree you can hardly call out developers for bugs in features that don't exist yet :-)

    @arlied does TFP have applications other than compiz? Textured video? seems that would be faster native anyway though.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cb88 View Post
    No you should offer a *good* experience to all users... loading down your CPU with bling will not do that. This is little more than proof of concept unless we get oct-channel ram and 16 way processing :-)

    If a computer doesn't have a 3d accelerator you shouldn't be doing 3d...and running compiz or gnomeshell would defeat the purpose of LLVMpipe as well (which is to make software rendering better as they would slow any 3d operations down in user software significantly.)

    LLVMpipe will let people without a 3d card and a fast CPU play a few opengl games... but little more

    I don't I necessarily agree. Whilst yes it is important not to bog down the cpu. It seems that gnome will be relying on graphic acceleration capable hardware more and more.


    The result from this is going to be a very modern (i.e blingy) desktop, I think that regardless though you will want to keep as many people as close to a homogeneous system as possible. Especially if you are selling support and telling people where graphic settings are hidden like canonical is.


    For people who don't even have a smidge of acceleration i think that there are more light weight distros to offer such as lubuntu or at a pinch xbuntu or my personal favorite #!.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cb88 View Post
    @nanonyme yep I agree you can hardly call out developers for bugs in features that don't exist yet :-)

    @arlied does TFP have applications other than compiz? Textured video? seems that would be faster native anyway though.
    No its pretty much designed to be used for GL compositors, not sure anyone has found any other use for it.

    Dave.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    /dev/random
    Posts
    218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanonyme View Post
    Though if we believe SmSpillaz - and why should we - it's more non-existing than broken.
    That's funny.

    SmSpillaz is the most active developer working on compiz, I think he know's what he's talking about.

    Next time try using google.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    291

    Default

    And whys should we believe just some-guy that happens to post to the phoronix forums :-P

    he is right though XD

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by airlied View Post
    Its kind of hard to do TFP in a direct rendered context with a sw renderer, since we rely on the drm to share the buffer objects between server/compositor.

    It needs llvmpipe in indirect context + some fixes in the server to do TFP in there.
    Unless the software renderer can get a handle on the X connection (which does make some sense for GLX stuff anyway). VirtualBox does this.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •