nanogui: Are we allowed to mandate GrFlush()?
Subject:
Re: [nanogui] Are we allowed to mandate GrFlush()?
From:
Steven Stadnicki ####@####.####
Date:
7 Aug 2001 15:57:42 -0000
Message-Id: <3B700FA2.F0B83DB@equator.com>
Jordan Crouse wrote:
> In any case, a GrFlush would be probably unnessesary, as a simple program
> wouldn't really care if there are a few microseconds between drawing
> operations, and the buffered programs would have already taken it all into
> consideration.
Well, if it were only a few microseconds then I would agree; the problem is
that
the copy operation from the draw buffer to the screen buffer is a little more
involved
than just a copy (I can't really get into the details, unfortunately, for IP
reasons)
and whenever it's called it may take many milliseconds to do -- so I really
don't
want to invoke it on every graphics operation, which is why I want to do it
during
the GrFlush() call, if I'm allowed to demand that the user make that call.
Steven Stadnicki
####@####.####
> On Tuesday 07 August 2001 09:06, Steven Stadnicki mentioned:
> > I'm looking at what amounts to a double- or triple-buffered display
> > system
> > where the simplest scheme to handle what I want to do is to mandate the
> > user to 'flush' from his primary output buffer to a display buffer. I'm
> > thinking
> > of trying to do this by making GrFlush not just a good idea but in fact
> > mandatory after a set of draw operations when the user is ready to
> > display
> > to the screen, but I'm wondering if this is really legitimate, or
> > whether too
> > many programs assume that what they draw will automatically be displayed
> >
> > and don't bother calling GrFlush().
> >
> > Steven Stadnicki
> > ####@####.####
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> > For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
