From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <a394b1dea50f35d9bb7c48de21f5b6fa@plan9.ucalgary.ca>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] porting from vs. porting to Plan 9
From: mirtchov@cpsc.ucalgary.ca
In-Reply-To: <20031020070457.GA30058@mithrandi.za.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:17:19 -0600
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 744fc10a-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 21:28:03 -0600, mirtchov@cpsc.ucalgary.ca wrote:
>> MesaGL 5.0.1 has been sitting largely compiled in $home since June
>> 15th..  It needs a driver for the software renderer and for glut,
>> which I believe is the harder of the two.
>
> How would hardware support be handled?

it won't...  even if Plan 9 knew hardware optimizations for anything
beyond rectangle fills, scrolling and hardware cursors there would be
too much code required to get mesa to use it.

ideally one would be hiding optimizations behind something like
/dev/opengl, but a reimplementation of the opengl library as a file
server is, I believe, beyond the amount of free time anyone on this
list has available :)

I don't think we can catch up with 2.0, even if we never look at the
1.x stuff...  makes for a nice student project though, doesn't it?
pity nobody would let me do it back when mesa was in its relative
infancy.

andrey