Re: [Gnash-dev] what is 'klash' ?

[Markus Gothe]

Rob Savoye wrote:
> strk wrote:
> 
>> AFAIK, it won't work unless you have an accelerated card, but
>> I might be wrong (software OGL?)
> 
> 
>   I guess it comes down to performance. Since I don't think Gnash really
> takes much advantage of hardware acceleration anyway, we should
> benchmark a complex movie to see if there is any difference between the
> OpenGL and the AGG backends. This would include running top to see the
> memory and CPU load differences. My gut feeling is that the frame rate
> for most Flash movies is slower than the rendering speed, so I don't
> think we'll see any real speed improvement with OpenGL over AGG. I run
> without acceleration anyway, as I'm using the open source Nvidia driver.
> We'd need to compare with the closed source Nvidia driver.
> 

Well, OpenGL is for 2D as well as 3D and is hw-driven in both cases if
your hw/driver supports it. I can tell that playing elvis.swf on my SGI
Octane2 (OGL implemented in the HW, no headers etc...) with AGG takes
~80% of CPU and ~16% with the OGL-backend. However as Sandro pointed
out; AGG has some aspects that isn't implemented (yet!) in the
OGL-backend. But since it seems to me that most of you guys prefer the
AGG I think we should make it default (how democratic of me ;-)).

//Markus

PS.

Software OGL is usually implemented by MESA and is a *real* CPU-hog...
Don't go there!

DS.

>> Anyway, I confirm I'm for AGG being the default.
> 
>   One advantage of using AGG is we drop the dependency on GTKGLEXT and
> libGL, and replace it with just AGG. Course if the version of AGG in the
> distribution is 2.4 or older, then we're screwed... so maybe OpenGL is
> safer till the newer release of AGG gets around.
> 
>       - rob -

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature