Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: ATI Gallium3D + Wine Is Bettered A Bit

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nille View Post
    On the Gallium Driver you get 2.1
    He has an R700, there isn't a working Gallium driver for those yet.
    The classic Mesa driver only supports OpenGL 2.0 for all R600 and R700 cards.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nille View Post
    And this is an WINE bug not an Driver bug.
    Well, sort of. A good driver would be able to better handle the hardware limitations that are being hit by WINE. Even if it is doing things in a way that isn't very reasonable.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    Why not? Personally speaking, I think these are some of the most interesting Phoronix articles. It's good to learn about progress on OpenGL support.
    Seconded. Real news based on facts, covering current development progress, which is basicaly the primary reason I track Phoronix.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Seconded. Real news based on facts, covering current development progress, which is basicaly the primary reason I track Phoronix.
    Thirded. Especially when the extension in question is used by important/interesting software, like this one is in WINE. I don't think there are even that many left 3.x+ - maybe a couple dozen?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Fourted ;-) It is interesting as most people doesn't watch xorg/dri/mesa mailing lists.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xeros View Post
    Fourted ;-) It is interesting as most people doesn't watch xorg/dri/mesa mailing lists.
    I second your fourted. :P

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyRider View Post
    Come on, we don't need an article for each single OGL extension implemented. There are how many? 5 hundreds? Do we need 5 hundred articles to report the progress?
    There are a small number of extensions missing between current drivers and full OpenGL 4 compliance (plus the GLSL updates)

    These extensions are not easy to implement, but there are not that many of them. Each one of them brings us closer to OpenGL 3/4 support in Mesa.

    I know that you don't care about open source implementations of OpenGL, only binary vendor drivers, but many of us do. When Mesa can do OpenGL 4, it will be a great day.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    361

    Default

    Actually I think stabilizing the current level of support (OpenGL 2.1) and improving performance is more important than full support for OpenGL 4.0 on paper.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,927

    Default

    Agreed, but one does not preclude the other.

    Especially since r300g can't do higher than 2.1 anyway, as the hardware does not support it.

    Also, many extensions need general Mesa work, which is shared between all drivers.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,034

    Default

    IMO it's Wine's fault; since when is it good behavior of an app to depend on a particular compiler optimization?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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