On 11-06-20 02:55 PM, tom fogal wrote:
Nathan Kidd<nathan...@spicycrypto.ca> writes:
Both the major and minor portions of the version number are
of arbitrary length. The vendor-specific information is
optional. However, if it is present, the format and contents are
implementation specific. "
Yes, I know how the version string works in this regard. Side note,
you quoted from the GLX spec, but I am actually discussing *GL* version
here, not GLX; in any case, the rules are the same as far as I know.
Meh, my bad.
The "(...)" part of the version string is perhaps a red herring
for what I'm trying to bring up: GLEW is telling applications that
functionality is not available when it is. The GLEW methodology is
based on the beginning (i.e. specified component) of the version
string. At least for Mesa 7.7.1, such logic appears to be a bad idea.
Any client that wants to push the limits of what's actually available
need to query extensions if the version number itself doesn't give what
you want. If GLEW is *only* looking at the version number it makes
sense to me that it get expanded to also check specific features via
extension string.
In the context of debugging problems with indirect GLX those
parenthetical versions are quite helpful.
I did not mean to imply they should be removed (though they have
been removed for other reasons in more recent versions of Mesa); I
really don't care what's there after the initial version number (as I
can't/shouldn't, as per the spec). However, with this version of Mesa,
it seems at first glance that one should just ignore the version number
/completely/.
(quoting from your other mail)
You are correct, rendering is indirect! I was unaware that direct vs.
indirect limited *GL* features. Why is that the case, and what can be
done? I'm just using swrast right now, maybe softpipe in the future;
I'm obviously not concerned with speed, I just need something that
supports some extensions for use in a regression testing system.
Of course, for indirect rendering every glFoo() function call needs to
be mapped to (GL)X protocol. Protocol exists up to OpenGL 1.4. There
are some features after that that have protocol specified, I believe
NVIDIA actually have unofficial protocol up till closer to OpenGL 2.0,
but the bottom line is there is no official protocol agreed upon for
later GL versions, therefore GLX clamps the GL version number to
whatever it can handle.
(Why the protocol doesn't exist is, to the best of my knowledge a matter
of effort not being invested for features that are considered less
useful in the lower-performance indirect context. I'm sure others on
this list have a better knowledge of the history there.)
-Nathan
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
