Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Direct3D 10/11 Is Now Natively Implemented On Linux!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Anyone get try this yet? It dies when I try to compile it.

    Code:
    make[5]: Entering directory `/home/robert/Source/mesa/src/gallium/state_trackers/d3d1x/d3d1xstutil'
    g++ -c -I. -I../../../../../src/gallium/include -I../../../../../src/gallium/auxiliary -I../../../../../src/gallium/drivers -Iinclude -I../gd3dapi -I../d3dapi -I../w32api -I../../../include -I../../../auxiliary -g -O2 -Wall -fvisibility=hidden -fno-strict-aliasing  -fPIC  -D_GNU_SOURCE -DPTHREADS -DHAVE_POSIX_MEMALIGN -DUSE_XCB -DGLX_USE_TLS -DPTHREADS -DUSE_EXTERNAL_DXTN_LIB=1 -DIN_DRI_DRIVER -DGLX_DIRECT_RENDERING -DGLX_INDIRECT_RENDERING -DHAVE_ALIAS -DHAVE_XEXTPROTO_71  src/dxgi_enums.cpp -o src/dxgi_enums.o
    In file included from src/dxgi_enums.cpp:27:
    include/d3d1xstutil.h:374:2: warning: #warning Compile for 586+ using GCC to improve the performance of the Direct3D 10/11 state tracker
    In file included from src/dxgi_enums.cpp:27:
    include/d3d1xstutil.h: In member function ?size_t std::tr1::hash<_Tp>::operator()(_Tp) const [with _Tp = _GUID]?:
    include/d3d1xstutil.h:759: error: ?template<unsigned int <anonymous> > struct std::tr1::_Fnv_hash? used without template parameters
    include/d3d1xstutil.h: In member function ?size_t std::tr1::hash<_Tp>::operator()(_Tp) const [with _Tp = c_string]?:
    include/d3d1xstutil.h:765: error: ?template<unsigned int <anonymous> > struct std::tr1::_Fnv_hash? used without template parameters
    include/d3d1xstutil.h: In member function ?size_t std::tr1::hash<std::pair<_T1, _T2> >::operator()(std::pair<_T1, _T2>) const?:
    include/d3d1xstutil.h:780: error: ?template<unsigned int <anonymous> > struct std::tr1::_Fnv_hash? used without template parameters
    make[5]: *** [src/dxgi_enums.o] Error 1
    make[5]: Leaving directory `/home/robert/Source/mesa/src/gallium/state_trackers/d3d1x/d3d1xstutil'
    make[4]: *** [all] Error 2
    make[4]: Leaving directory `/home/robert/Source/mesa/src/gallium/state_trackers/d3d1x'
    make[3]: *** [subdirs] Error 1
    make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/robert/Source/mesa/src/gallium/state_trackers'
    make[2]: *** [default] Error 1
    make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/robert/Source/mesa/src/gallium'
    make[1]: *** [subdirs] Error 1
    make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/robert/Source/mesa/src'
    make: *** [default] Error 1

    Comment


    • Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
      Really? That's the business guy making remarks- considering that John Carmack's NOT said that publicly and only Todd Hollenshead that has said this and before the interview was made, I think you're reaching a bit, BlackStar.

      So far, all you've done is reach for this one item to back your remarks- and a weak and tenuous item it is. You won't address the challenge- which means you're not a coder or if you are, you've never worked with the stuff in question. If you don't have knowledge of things, you should refrain from making statements as if they're facts.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by siride View Post
        Windows dominates because it actually works, because it runs software that people need to get their work done, because the knowledge base about Windows is considerably larger and cheaper than for Linux and because there's a multi-billion dollar corporation behind it with the resources to make it work and to make it work for you (often only if you are willing to pay enough). Games a lot further down the list. Most people aren't gamers, or they just use consoles to play games.
        Windows dominates because they come default to the desktop computers. If Linux was the default one then it would just work because it would be preconfigured in each computer.
        Right now the majority of people doesn't know that Linux exists at all. how much if it actually work.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
          I'll ask again- have you ever coded for either? If not, please don't be making comparisons as you've little clue on the subject.
          Obviously yes, for the last decade or so. Software 3d before that.

          Full disclaimer: OpenGL is still my API of choice, which is why I love to bitch about it. Then again, would you not prefer it if modern OpenGL was more like that other API in design and driver support? It might not be politically correct but you know the answer.

          The noise in this thread is getting overwhelming. Have fun with your matchsticks!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
            So far, all you've done is reach for this one item to back your remarks- and a weak and tenuous item it is. You won't address the challenge- which means you're not a coder or if you are, you've never worked with the stuff in question. If you don't have knowledge of things, you should refrain from making statements as if they're facts.
            Okay, I see that you've made a few remarks about a few things that D3D does versus OpenGL. However, where you say some of this is error prone, some of the D3D stuff is also so- just in different places. There's lots of build-up/tear down. Driving things via COM-Like interfaces isn't any less error prone (I've done decades of the stuff, professionally, including OCX's...)

            Different, yes.

            Easier, no so much so.

            So, if you know this stuff, why didn't you challenge my remarks?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by BlackStar View Post

              It certainly *is* the fault of the API when noone seems to be able to get the implementation details right (Intel, Ati, Apple, Mesa, Nvidia are all incompatible in different ways).
              For a big part this is a SGI issue. At the OpenGL BOF (I was there) they mentioned that they (Khronos) were finally working on a OpenGL 4.1 conformance test suite. The old test suite was from OpenGL 1.2.1. Potentially if this suite gets used, it might lead to higher quality drivers.

              Further OpenGL certainly isn't dead. In the professional world nearly everything is OpenGL. One of the Siggraph talks from AMD was called 'DirectX 11' but apart from the title there was no DirectX at all, the talk was 100% about OpenGL. Nvidia also had talks and they were OpenGL only. At least AMD and Nvidia really like OpenGL (there were some fun remarks at the GL BOF regarding the 'other API').

              In the gaming area, GL needs to get adopted by more games but in terms of functionality it is on par with Direct3D. If you just stick to the core profile it really is a nice and elegant API. No need for DirectShit.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                Obviously yes, for the last decade or so. Software 3d before that.


                Sorry I impugned your work history. You actually DID respond with a few details just now- but before that you weren't really backing up any of your arguments with solid facts.

                You only once did anything that would've led anyone to believe you knew something of what you were talking about. None of your arguments had any good grounds to back your premises- even with the Hollenshead quote, you didn't really back your position well.

                Full disclaimer: OpenGL is still my API of choice, which is why I love to bitch about it.
                Bitching about it is "okay". Calling D3D "better" is less so. It's not "better"- it's different with it's own weaknesses and strengths that place it on par with it if you compare features to features. The only thing "superior" that D3D had until recently was feature set- which was debatable as to whether it made things "easier" to code or "faster" in execution.

                So, if it's your API of choice, why are you over in the D3D camp, hm?


                Then again, would you not prefer it if modern OpenGL was more like that other API in design and driver support? It might not be politically correct but you know the answer.
                If it were like the other API in design, it'd BE D3D all over again. It's got it's OWN serious flaws, similar in scope to the ones OpenGL does- just in differing places. It's why I keep calling people on D3D being called "superior"- it isn't.

                As for the driver support, yeah, I wish they'd put a bit more effort into supporting the drivers in the case of AMD and NVidia, as they do on the D3D side of things. The backends' are fairly solid these days, for either drivers- it's the state tracker code that typically has the issues.

                The noise in this thread is getting overwhelming. Have fun with your matchsticks!
                No kidding... I'm bowing out too. Too much ridiculous claims going to and fro here.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
                  Okay, I see that you've made a few remarks about a few things that D3D does versus OpenGL. However, where you say some of this is error prone, some of the D3D stuff is also so- just in different places. There's lots of build-up/tear down. Driving things via COM-Like interfaces isn't any less error prone (I've done decades of the stuff, professionally, including OCX's...)

                  Different, yes.

                  Easier, no so much so.

                  So, if you know this stuff, why didn't you challenge my remarks?
                  Because people have to eat, too, you know! Different time zones and all that. :P

                  Regarding tech5, the original article reads:
                  Auch OpenGL hat mittlerweile nicht mehr die Top-Priorit?t bei id Software, Hollenshead zufolge habe Microsoft viel aus seinen Fehlern bei fr?heren DirectX-Versionen gelernt. Carmack sei von DirectX mittlerweile recht angetan. OpenGL werde zwar weiter unterst?tzt, was auch an der direkten Mac-Unterst?tzung zu sehen ist [...]
                  He makes it sound like a Carmack decision. Anyway, that's somewhat beside the point.

                  Regarding your remarks, all I can say is that my personal experience is that (a) OpenGL is easier to misuse and (b) its drivers blow up much easier compared to D3D, even when used correctly. The first is easy to fix, with experience and correct tools. The latter not so much.

                  D3D has the advantage of more testing and faster response to bugs (all those games...) With OpenGL you are pretty much SOL, unless you happen to run on Nvidia Quadros. Great if you can afford to dictate the hardware, sucks otherwise.

                  Comment


                  • Get prepared to be shocked: http://www.opengl.org/documentation/current_version/

                    Four point fscking ONE

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Thunderbird View Post
                      For a big part this is a SGI issue. At the OpenGL BOF (I was there) they mentioned that they (Khronos) were finally working on a OpenGL 4.1 conformance test suite. The old test suite was from OpenGL 1.2.1. Potentially if this suite gets used, it might lead to higher quality drivers.
                      That's great!

                      Further OpenGL certainly isn't dead.
                      It's not - nowadays. Two years ago it was.

                      In the gaming area, GL needs to get adopted by more games but in terms of functionality it is on par with Direct3D. If you just stick to the core profile it really is a nice and elegant API. No need for DirectShit.
                      Problem being that the core profile kills about 50% of your target hardware. And let me tell you, that's going to fly really well with management.

                      Originally posted by Svartalf
                      So, if it's your API of choice, why are you over in the D3D camp, hm?
                      It's more fun this way.

                      Plus, choice is good.

                      Originally posted by Svartalf
                      If it were like the other API in design, it'd BE D3D all over again. It's got it's OWN serious flaws, similar in scope to the ones OpenGL does- just in differing places. It's why I keep calling people on D3D being called "superior"- it isn't.
                      I don't quite agree, but fair enough.

                      Get prepared to be shocked: http://www.opengl.org/documentation/current_version/

                      Four point fscking ONE
                      Yeah, it's been out for a couple of months. Program binaries FTW.

                      Why am I doing here? Damn, this place is addictive.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X