Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - demetrioussharpe

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 14
76
Hardware / Re: OpenGL ddk
« on: 2011.04.02, 03:58:31 »
Sorry mates, mind the date! lol

77
Hardware / Re: OpenGL ddk
« on: 2011.04.01, 15:36:16 »
It seems as though I've accidentally wrote a few lines of code that render in a similar fashion to how Direct3D renders. Instead of deleting the code, I've decided to pursue it a little. Since GL/2 has an architecture that's mildly modular, I should be able to add D3D support without disrupting the rest of the framework & with using the same hardware drivers. More to follow!

78
Hardware / Re: OpenGL ddk
« on: 2011.03.20, 15:34:58 »
Still working on the memory management layer.

*nods*


Still working on the memory management layer. Taking a break this wk, though, in celebration of my birthday.  Don't worry, the project is still ongoing.

Ah!

Well, here's wishing you a very Happy Birthday celebration!


 :D


Thanks! We're driving back from Dallas within the next couple of hours. After we pick up the kids, things will get back to normal.

79
Hardware / Re: OpenGL ddk
« on: 2011.03.19, 20:48:34 »
Any headway with OpenGL/2?

I haven't heard anything in a while so I was wondering...




Still working on the memory management layer. Taking a break this wk, though, in celebration of my birthday.  Don't worry, the project is still ongoing.

80
Programming / Re: OS/2 DLLs
« on: 2011.03.06, 04:29:55 »

81
Hardware / Re: OpenGL ddk
« on: 2011.03.06, 04:00:09 »
Ok, it's the 5th of March & we have no other submissions, so I'll email Joachim the new image for the GL/2 page.

82
Programming / OS/2 DLLs
« on: 2011.03.06, 03:53:20 »
Does anyone have a list of all of the DLLs that come with a basic installation of OS/2 & documentation of the functions within those DLLs? Even down to the function & DLL redirections for DLLs that've been merged?

83
Hardware / Re: OpenGL ddk
« on: 2011.03.02, 02:35:30 »
Looks like we no longer need the poll. Back when the polls were even, I decided to mostly use 64-bit floating point precision for values that could be submitted as one of multiple types. They're now converted to the correct value for their respective types. Thanks to all who've taken the time to vote in the poll & thanks for setting up the poll!

84
Hardware / Re: OpenGL ddk
« on: 2011.03.02, 02:29:10 »
Well, March 4th is right around the corner & there haven't been any other submissions. Looks like we might be able to forgo any actual judging. I think we might have our logo!

85
Hardware / Re: OpenGL ddk
« on: 2011.02.28, 01:19:16 »
After evaluating the codebase, I can find no actual ATi R200 driver implementation, the folder that was supposed to contain it is actually empty. Also, while looking at the GL glue API's, I found code for OS/2 versions of GLX & WGL. What I did not find, however, was an implementation of PGL. I can understand wanting to bring over these APIs from other OSes for compatibility reasons, but it really seems like everyone wants to abandon the original OS/2 APIs even when there's no need to. I'm all for extending our APIs & upgrading them, but we really shouldn't just abandon them when there's no real reason to do so.

I was sent an older version of WarpMesaGL which did have the ATi R200 driver beginnings. I have not had a chance to properly look through the code, but I can say that there's code there. Also, the sender has an OS/2 OpenGL readme page that may be of interest. It's located at: ftp://alter.org.ua/incoming/gl_os2.htm. By using this page, I was able to avoid a potiential bug by using a simple header fix. I will know for sure if this bug has be fixed once I start the GLUT implementation. In any case, this whole experience has been pretty pleasant & has taught me a lot. More to follow!

86
Hardware / Re: OpenGL ddk
« on: 2011.02.26, 09:13:23 »
Hello Demetrius, hello to everyone. Excuse me if I do not write properly in English  :)
I am glad that finally tackle the problem of opengl, but mainly the problem of 3D accelerated driver. I analyzed the code of Demetrius, and it seems very promising, if it continues at this rate, we can have a very complete OpenGL library, but also adhering to the current OpenGL standard.
The problem remains, however, always to have accelerated 3D drivers that currently does not exist in OS/2.
I've heard about GL2DDK, with source code examples for writing a GRADD video driver with OpenGL hardware support (if someone can be sent to me via email this GL2DDk). Well, beyond the issue of licensing IBM and SGI, I think it's time to take as an example GL2DDK and begin the creation of such drivers.

Vincenzo

Hello Vincenzo,

I think you are slightly confused & are blending 2 completely different codebases. GL/2 is my project which has the dual goals of creating an OpenGL implementation & creating a DDK for 3D video drivers in OS/2. So, GL2DDK most closely describes my project. I think the DDK codebase that you're referring to is IBM's OpenGL DDK. While both of these codebases should result in the same outcome, there are a number of differences between the 2. Keeping in mind that OpenGL drivers are intimately tied to specific OpenGL library implementations & can not be used with other implementations, here are the major differences between GL/2 (w/DDK) & IBM's DDK:

IBM:

1). Based on an older version of OpenGL (1.0 & 1.1) with no way to used extensions or updated functionality
2). Incomplete & never released for usage
3). Did not originate from OS/2 & has quite a bit of cruft from *nix
4). Seems exist for the sole purpose of jumping on the OpenGL bandwagon, instead of existing to be actually useful

GL/2:

1). Initially based on OpenGL v2.0, but constantly looks forward to later specs with the added ability to use extensions & updates (if available)
2). The whole purpose for this project is completeness & usability; it's open sourced, so it's in a constant state of release
3). It's written for OS/2 from scratch & does not contain any DNA from implementations from other OSes
4). Exists because it's useful & needed

While IBM's DDK would be mildly useful for writing OpenGL drivers for the included OpenGL implementation for OS/2, it really wouldn't serve a purpose for writing GL/2 drivers. The main purpose for DDKs is to give an example of how to interface a specific driver to the OS by tying it to the subsystem that will be the primary user. In that regard, IBM's DDK will show you exactly how to tie a driver in to their implementation, but it really won't give you much data on how video drivers should work with the card that they're written for. In fact, if I remember correctly, their DDK's driver doesn't really actually accelerate very much, it's more of a proof-of-concept kind of driver. However, stay tuned. Soon enough, I'll get to the part of the project where it'll be time to finish solidifying the actual device driver interface & create an example of how to write a GL/2 driver.

87
Hardware / Re: OpenGL ddk
« on: 2011.02.24, 23:23:50 »
After committing the latest bit of code to the GL/2 repo, I find myself at a special point in development. It's a point where you can go no father until you tackle problems that you've been procrastinating on. Now that the function routing code (cpp_pipeline/internal.cpp) has been implemented, I won't get very far with the implementation of the actual GL API (cpp_pipeline/glapi.cpp) until I implement the memory management system. This shouldn't end up being overly complicated & overbearing. It should be just enough to allocate memory for textures & other video objects. This also means that I'll be able to put more effort into the AGPGART driver port. The memory manager will have a basic waterfall approach to memory allocations & will try to allocate memory from the following sources, in order:

1). Video memory
2). AGP aperture
3). System RAM

More to follow.

88
Hardware / Re: OpenGL ddk
« on: 2011.02.24, 01:41:48 »
After evaluating the codebase, I can find no actual ATi R200 driver implementation, the folder that was supposed to contain it is actually empty. Also, while looking at the GL glue API's, I found code for OS/2 versions of GLX & WGL. What I did not find, however, was an implementation of PGL. I can understand wanting to bring over these APIs from other OSes for compatibility reasons, but it really seems like everyone wants to abandon the original OS/2 APIs even when there's no need to. I'm all for extending our APIs & upgrading them, but we really shouldn't just abandon them when there's no real reason to do so.

89
Hardware / Re: OpenGL ddk
« on: 2011.02.24, 01:14:53 »
Hi demetrioussharpe

Is the WarpMesaGL source code open source? is the license compatible with the work you are doing?

I don't know much about WarpMesaGL, I just hope the access to the source code and binaries can be public and freely distributed.

Martin

Yes, it's based on Mesa3D. I think it's the 5.0 version of Mesa3D.

90
Hardware / Re: OpenGL ddk
« on: 2011.02.24, 01:14:01 »
Recently, I was contacted by someone who sent me the source code to WarpMesaGL. If I'd had this code from the beginning, I probably would've never started up the GL/2 project. I'm currently evaluating this code to determine it's value. The programmer who did the port seems to have abandoned the code back in 2003, apparently.

Ouch!

You have my sympathies...  :(

I know what it's like to do a work of altruism only to find once well along the road, that someone brings something forward that makes your good deed redundant... or a significant portion thereof.

Still, here's hoping that the two work well together to bring out something more than either would otherwise have been.



It was definitely a pickle, but I'm going to push forward with GL/2. It would take too much work to bring WarpMesaGL up to date with current Mesa3D.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 14