chi at etersoft.ru
Thu Nov 13 12:56:08 CST 2008
В сообщении от Thursday 13 November 2008 13:22:07 Massimo Del Fedele
> Sergey Novosyolov ha scritto:
> > I've already started working on it about 3 months ago and released some
> > functions inside DIB Engine. But now we're thinking about release DIB
> > inside GDI32 as Detlef Riekenberg proposed:
> > On 9/29/08, Sergey Novosyolov <chi at etersoft.ru> wrote:
> >>> The first thing, i like to see is a Design in the correct way:
> >>> Inside gdi32 while using Eng* and friends.
> >>> (Needed by Printer drivers, and any Display driver including mirror /
> >>> remote display drivers)
> >> why can't we release DIB-Engine as own driver? GDI32 functions are main
> >> and GDI32 calls driver functions in dependence of which type of DC we
> >> have (printer DC, Xwindow HDC or DIB DC)
> >> Any Driver can call the Graphic Rendering Engine (GRE)
> >> to do parts (or all) of the rendering (and native driver do that):
> >> 1: DDB (Driver managed: using any driver specific format)
> > > (The Driver should do Everything. When the driver call the GRE,
> > > the DDB is converted to a DIB, GDI renders into the DIB and then
> > > the DIB is converted back to a DDB)
> > >
> > > => like our winex11.drv and wineps.drv
> >> 2: DDB (GDI managed: using DIB format)
> >> (The driver render, what the driver want to render with hw-support
> >> and can call the GRE for all the other rendering without converting)
> >> => Needed for native printer drivers / mirror drivers or
> >> OpenGL accelerated rendering (stefan did some experiments)
> >> 3: DIB
> >> (GDI renders everything)
> >> => The current Code is using a X11-DDB (Driver Managed) with
> >> converting
> >> issues.
> > So the conception of new strusture of DIB ENgine inside GDI is needed
> The question is if we should support native drivers or not, other than
> winex11 or wineps. For winex11, we're using native rendering functions,
> for wineps we're just translating GRE calls to ps code directly, no need
> to convert forth and back. Other stuff would be raw printing, for
> example, using native drivers.... but are they really needed ?
> AFAIK the bottleneck now is the double conversion of DIB-X11 DDB-DIB, in
> order to be able to use X11 rendering functions, so the point 3.
> I don't understand your point 1; why convert DDB to DIB ? Driver should
> render directly into DDB. GDI calls can be directed to native ones.
> I see it this way (but I could be wrong) :
> 1) Application uses a DIB format, rendering should be done by DIB
> driver, conversion is needed only to display it. This is what by now is
> done with 2 conversions between DIB-X11-DIB formats.
As i see if we operate with Display DC we no need to convert and GDI32 calls
X11DRV functions directly.
If we operate with memoryDC GDI calls DIB functions and then uses BitBlt if
needed to reflect memoryDC operations on teh display
> 2) Application uses accelerated opengl, for example; it must (afaik) use
> native format and functions to render it. No need to convert anything.
what do you mean "native format"? is it connected with GDI calls?
> 3) Printer drivers. For ps, they're rendered translating GDI calls into
> postscript code, for other format the driver should do the rendering.
> Again, no conversion needed.
> So, I don't understand why to have DIB engine INSIDE GDI. Function
> pointers could handle the correct driver calls depending on DIB (or DDB)
DIB is Device Independent Bitmap so DIB functions would be include those
functions which implemented the same independ of device
More information about the wine-devel