Hi,

Jacques, I think that you may know what the problem is with the slow lablgl 
(I hope you know).  My problem is that glxinfo says that I have direct rendering 
enabled and gears.c (not ocaml version) run really fast but the planet.ml 
and tennis.ml run slow. I suspect as Sven Luther suggest that it does not 
use the correct library for accelerated open gl.
I tried ldd on lablgl but it does not use dynamic libraries so maybe I must 
compile lablgl myself and link with some static accelrated library? Right 
know I don't know how to proceed.
I have installed ocaml, labgl from debian woody (no lablgtk+).

Thank you

Peter Rönnquist



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:13:05 +0100
Subject: Re: problems with compilation with lablgl.
From: Sven <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>
To: peter_ronnquist@hushmail.com

On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 11:59:53AM +0000, peter_ronnquist@hushmail.com wrote:
> Hi, 
> 
> sorry for the late reply. I am using matrox G400 and athlon 700 mhz. I 
got 
> dri working, the gears.c (not the ocaml version) and that gives 900 fps 

lucky you, ...

I have a bi celeron box, and DRI freeze it solid some times, so no luck 
...

> in a small window.  The ocaml version of gears scrambles the screen and 
> I have to kill it from a console.

Don't know, it worked for me.

notice, if you use lablgtk+ lablgl, you will need to add doublebuffering 
to some examples, as they will not run without it.

> The planet.ml and tennis.ml runs slow though and I am trying to figuring 
> out why. Does these examples run accelerated for you? 

Like said, they have a tendency to freeze my box, so i disabled DRI. here 
on my home box, i have not yet finished writing DRI support for my permedia3 
based card.

But my guess is that you are not using the accelerated libraries.

What does glxinfo says to you ? 

Maybe there is a problem with the fact that ocaml is doing static linking,
 and not dynamic linking.

> I will investigate if not the planet.ml draws on in the "front" buffer 
and 
> not in the "back" buffer. I saw in some mailing list that it was much 
slower 
> if you did not use the "back" buffer.

Yes, using a back buffer should improve speed, but also improve fluidity 
of the display.

Hope this help, i think writing to jacques directly about this is more advised 
...

Friendly,

sven Luther