Miklós Máté mtmkls@gmail.com writes:
On 04/04/17 12:11, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Miklós Máté mtmkls@gmail.com writes:
@@ -1334,21 +1334,21 @@ static void free_gl_drawable( struct gl_drawable *gl ) /***********************************************************************
create_gl_drawable*/ -static BOOL create_gl_drawable( HWND hwnd, struct gl_drawable *gl ) +static BOOL create_gl_drawable( HWND hwnd, struct gl_drawable *gl, struct x11drv_win_data *data ) { gl->drawable = 0; if (GetAncestor( hwnd, GA_PARENT ) == GetDesktopWindow()) /* top-level window */ {
struct x11drv_win_data *data = get_win_data( hwnd );if (data) { gl->type = DC_GL_WINDOW; gl->window = create_client_window( data, gl->visual ); if (gl->window)
{ gl->drawable = pglXCreateWindow( gdi_display, gl->format->fbconfig, gl->window, NULL );
release_win_data( data );
XSync( gdi_display, False );Do you really need all the extra XSync calls? We try to avoid server round-trips as much as possible.
Yes. We must ensure that glXCreateWindow() and glXDestroyWindow() refer to a valid X window, so the command queue of data->display and gdi_display have to be in sync around those calls.
If the goal is that the X window is valid, I'd have expected an XSync on the thread display. Why is the XSync on gdi_display needed here? What is the scenario that fails?
I'm not questioning that some XSyncs are necessary (and we already have a few), but I want to make sure we don't add more than needed.