LWJGL 2.5 Released

Started by Matzon, July 16, 2010, 11:20:05

Previous topic - Next topic

Luy

I just found the following paper: http://algo2.iti.kit.edu/wassenberg/timing/timing_pitfalls.pdf
If I get it right, there is a reliable timer called High-Precision Event Timer (HPET) on current hardware and QPC uses that from Vista on.

Matzon

Quote from: Luy on July 26, 2010, 21:34:33
I just found the following paper: http://algo2.iti.kit.edu/wassenberg/timing/timing_pitfalls.pdf
If I get it right, there is a reliable timer called High-Precision Event Timer (HPET) on current hardware and QPC uses that from Vista on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Precision_Event_Timer:
QuoteThe following operating systems are known not to be able to use HPET: Windows XP,[note 2] Windows Server 2003, and earlier Windows versions, Linux kernels prior to 2.6.[note 3]

The following operating systems are known to be able to use HPET: Windows Vista, Windows 2008, Windows 7, x86 based versions of Mac OS X, Linux operating systems using the 2.6 kernel, FreeBSD and OpenSolaris.

Before we can implement a workaround, we need a reliable way of determining if a timer is "wrong" ... ?

Luy

Quote from: Matzon on July 27, 2010, 08:12:26
Before we can implement a workaround, we need a reliable way of determining if a timer is "wrong" ... ?
Sure. I'm no expert, but some googling revealed that on linux information about the used timers can be found in /sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/ or you can try to directly access the HPET as described here: http://blog.fpmurphy.com/2009/07/linux-hpet-support.html

On Windows Vista/7 a device driver is installed if HPET is available, so you could probably check that. See e.g. http://forum.scottmueller.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1284

theagentd

In NVFramebufferMultisampleCoverage, the variable GL_MULTISAMPLE_COVERAGE_MODES_NV is spelled GL_MULITSAMPLE_COVERAGE_MODES_NV. Unless mulITsampling is a new function, it's spelled incorrectly. xd

jouvieje

Quote from: javalwjgl on July 24, 2010, 20:06:13
ok changes made.

If you have any other remarks do point them out, always trying to make it better :)

Thanks  :)

One thing I could suggest as an improvement. It could be great if the applet loader could download and extract in parallel, instead of extracting everything at the end. This could probably speed a little more the loading (of the first run), which is always great.

wondersonic

Hi,
Again a great release!   :D

Quote from: Matzon on July 16, 2010, 11:20:05

  • General: Added support for disabling runtime function checks, buffer checks and state tracking. Activated with -Dorg.lwjgl.util.NoChecks=true

I've dreamt of this point since a long time.

Quote from: Matzon on July 16, 2010, 11:20:05
Notice: We'd like to remind people to include the copyright, conditions and disclaimer statement for LWJGL in their products, as required by the license. Though we are not about to claim foul in any way, it would be nice to see a link back to lwjgl.org in the credits or documentation at the very minimum.

Coming to my mind another idea: is there a 3D version of the LWJGL logo available somewhere?  ???

Again thanks!
WS
S.

Simon Felix

Quote from: wondersonic on August 09, 2010, 18:29:04
Hi,
Again a great release!   :D

Quote from: Matzon on July 16, 2010, 11:20:05

  • General: Added support for disabling runtime function checks, buffer checks and state tracking. Activated with -Dorg.lwjgl.util.NoChecks=true

I've dreamt of this point since a long time.

Yeah, me too. I tried disabling the checks but found it made no difference... Could you measure the performance impact of the runtime checks?
Download Cultris II, the fastest Tetris clone from http://gewaltig.net/

wondersonic

Quote from: dr_evil on August 12, 2010, 10:54:26
Quote from: wondersonic on August 09, 2010, 18:29:04
Hi,
Again a great release!   :D

Quote from: Matzon on July 16, 2010, 11:20:05

  • General: Added support for disabling runtime function checks, buffer checks and state tracking. Activated with -Dorg.lwjgl.util.NoChecks=true

I've dreamt of this point since a long time.

Yeah, me too. I tried disabling the checks but found it made no difference... Could you measure the performance impact of the runtime checks?

I guess I didn't make performance tests since 3 months but at the time these checks costed around 10% of the time.
S.