This seems like the wrong way to go. I'm wondering if there is another way to detect VRAM? There should be a way to determine VRAM from Xorg? Why should OpenGL or DirectDraw be the method that Wine uses to determine video RAM? Why should Wine have a fixed value based on a list? Maybe I'm being stupid, but I think it would make sense for the display server (xorg) to know how much VRAM a graphics card has...<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Jesse Allen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:the3dfxdude@gmail.com">the3dfxdude@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Stefan D�singer<<a href="mailto:stefandoesinger@gmx.at">stefandoesinger@gmx.at</a>> wrote:<br>
> Am Friday 14 August 2009 18:01:07 schrieb Sun, Sunny:<br>
>> + � � � �if(gl_info->vidmem < 64 * 1024 * 1024)<br>
>> + � � � � � �gl_info->vidmem = 64 * 1024 * 1024;<br>
> I guess the idea is that no ATI card that was ever supported on fglrx has less<br>
> than 64 mb of memory? My old radeon 9000, which isn't supported by fglrx<br>
> since years now has 64 MB. Does this hold true for radeon 8500 cards too?<br>
><br>
> I think I'll use the guessed amount of vidmem in this case instead of<br>
> hardcoding 64 MB.<br>
><br>
> Using the undocumented value and the check for older drivers which don't<br>
> support it is a bit hacky, but its a well-isolated hack and avoids a lot of<br>
> problems, so it should be ok.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div>My Radeon 9200 has 128 MB. �But I've never used fglrx on it either, so<br>
I don't know what this gains.<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br>