[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mxe-octave status
From: |
PrasannaKumar Muralidharan |
Subject: |
Re: mxe-octave status |
Date: |
Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:31:47 +0530 |
On 22 October 2017 at 15:16, Philip Nienhuis <address@hidden> wrote:
> PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22-Oct-2017 2:39 AM, "John W. Eaton" <address@hidden
>> <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/21/2017 04:58 PM, Philip Nienhuis wrote:
>>
>> Results with a --disable-system-opengl32 mxe-octave build:
>>
>> I can confirm the crash on a PC with older Intel card (with the
>> default Windows opengl32.dll) when removing / renaming the
>> Octave-supplied (mesa-)opengl32.dll. Octave works fine there
>> with the mesa-openg32.dll
>>
>>
>> OK, thanks for testing.
>>
>> I think we now have a good way to provide OpenGL based graphics when
>> the OpenGL implementation provided by the system causes trouble.
>> Getting LLVM to build for Windows so we can have the llvmpipe
>> renderer will improve performance, but at least it works now.
>>
>>
>> I am wondering whether angle library can be used in windows. Angle
>> library translates opengl calls to directx calls. Qt and Chromium are
>> prominent users of angle.
>
>
> Yeah I read about angle as it was mentioned in one of the links I reported
> in my earlier posts in this thread.
> Someone will have to dive into it; it'll introduce yet additional
> dependencies while the windows installer is already so big. And maybe there
It will remove the mesa and llvm from Installer (if it is there). So I
think that size may reduce actually.
According to
https://chromium.googlesource.com/angle/angle/+/master/doc/DevSetup.md
adding angle support seems to be easy.
> are license issues? As regards GPL, DirectX/Direct3D is a "system library" I
> suppose. But we'd have to avoid the proprietary SDK stuff.
I do not have any idea on license issues. I don't know if proprietary
SDK is required to use angle.
> Anyway a good idea to keep angle in mind, thanks.
>
> P.
Regards,
PrasannaKumar
- Re: mxe-octave status, (continued)
- Re: mxe-octave status, John W. Eaton, 2017/10/20
- Re: mxe-octave status, Philip Nienhuis, 2017/10/20
- Re: mxe-octave status, John W. Eaton, 2017/10/20
- Re: mxe-octave status, John W. Eaton, 2017/10/21
- Re: mxe-octave status, Philip Nienhuis, 2017/10/21
- Re: mxe-octave status, Philip Nienhuis, 2017/10/21
- Re: mxe-octave status, John W. Eaton, 2017/10/21
- Re: mxe-octave status, Philip Nienhuis, 2017/10/21
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: mxe-octave status, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan, 2017/10/22
- Re: mxe-octave status, Philip Nienhuis, 2017/10/22
- Re: mxe-octave status,
PrasannaKumar Muralidharan <=
- Re: mxe-octave status, Philip Nienhuis, 2017/10/23
- Re: mxe-octave status, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan, 2017/10/24
- Re: mxe-octave status, PhilipNienhuis, 2017/10/22
RE: mxe-octave status, JohnD, 2017/10/20