On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Lofstedt, Marta <marta.lofst...@intel.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ibmir...@gmail.com [mailto:ibmir...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ilia >> Mirkin >> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:25 PM >> To: Marta Lofstedt >> Cc: mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org; Lofstedt, Marta >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mesa: enable enums for OES_geometry_shader >> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Marta Lofstedt >> <marta.lofst...@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> > + case EXTRA_EXT_GPU5_GS: >> > + api_check = GL_TRUE; >> > + api_found = (ctx->Extensions.ARB_gpu_shader5 || >> > + _mesa_has_OES_geometry_shader(ctx)); >> > + break; >> > + case EXTRA_EXT_VIEWPORT_GS: >> > + api_check = GL_TRUE; >> > + api_found = (ctx->Extensions.ARB_viewport_array || >> > + _mesa_has_OES_geometry_shader(ctx)); >> > + break; >> >> You can do these without the special tokens. Or did you mean && here? > > I am pretty sure that our previous discussions on this topic ended up with || > to be preferable in these cases, but if you want && I will change.
I actually don't want either. What I'm saying is that if you want ||, then you don't have to add these EXTRA_EXT_GPU5_GS things -- using the regular mechanism for composing tokens will get you ||. You only need to use these special tokens if you want &&. I haven't thought about which one is desirable though. (Or rather, I've forgotten all thoughts I had on the matter.) -ilia _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
