On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Anuj Phogat <anuj.pho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> 2016-09-29 14:42 GMT-04:00 Anuj Phogat <anuj.pho...@gmail.com>:
>>> Signed-off-by: Anuj Phogat <anuj.pho...@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu>
>>> ---
>>> src/mesa/main/get.c | 6 ++++++
>>> src/mesa/main/get_hash_params.py | 8 ++++----
>>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/mesa/main/get.c b/src/mesa/main/get.c
>>> index e7ebc7f..64a4b0e 100644
>>> --- a/src/mesa/main/get.c
>>> +++ b/src/mesa/main/get.c
>>> @@ -405,6 +405,12 @@ static const int
>>> extra_ARB_viewport_array_or_oes_geometry_shader[] = {
>>> EXTRA_END
>>> };
>>>
>>> +static const int extra_ARB_viewport_array_or_oes_viewport_array[] = {
>>> + EXT(ARB_viewport_array),
>>> + EXT(OES_viewport_array),
>>> + EXTRA_END
>>> +};
>>
>> I originally had this patch in my series but took it out - why isn't
>> it reasonable to just flip on the ARB_viewport_array bit and move on?
>> (i.e. decree that in order to enable OES_viewport_array you must also
>> enable ARB_viewport_array)
>>
> I don't see a big reason to prefer one or the other. I noticed we are
> doing it this way for few other gles extensions and found it slightly
> cleaner. Otherwise I don't have a strong preference.
I don't feel too strongly about it either. If you think this is
better, this series is
Reviewed-by: Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
