[SDL] Re: 2D Accelerated Hardware Support?
pp at ludusdesign.com
Thu Jun 29 09:11:59 PDT 2000
Mattias Engdegård wrote:
> Don't interpret this as defaitism; see it as a challenge to improve the
> current state of the art. I personally believe 5) is unacceptable, and more
> operations (particularly alpha blits, stretching /rotating blits) should be
> made available, when supported by the hardware. DRI shows some promise,
> even though the support is narrow and the design not uncontroversial.
I agree (with 5) being unacceptable and DRI showing some promise).
Which parts of the design of DRI are deemed as controversial?
I believe that an X extension that would allow for some more direct
exposure of the acceleration hardware without giving access to the
framebuffer (which is the big thing needing root privileges) would be
more than welcome. Even in an indirect mode, the ability to do color-key
blitting from Pixmaps and making sure a Pixmap is in video memory could
help a *lot* some applications.
The DRM part of the DRI could also be used to drop the root privileges
requirement of DGA (v1 and v2) and could add an optional direct
framebuffer access to the previously described extension concept (or
perharps as a separate extension).
"Unix is the worst operating system; except for all others."
-- Berry Kercheval
More information about the SDL