On 08/30/2012 09:32 AM, Ian Romanick wrote:
On 08/30/2012 02:33 PM, Brian Paul wrote:On 08/30/2012 08:08 AM, Ian Romanick wrote:
So far, all future versions of OpenGL are backwards compatible with 3.1. Failing that, should it try 3.2 core, then 3.1, then 1.0 (current behavior)?I think so. I actually started hacking on this a while ago. Would you be interested in a patch if I can find it?Sure. It would give me a start, anyway.
Attached. It's from June of 2011, actually. Hopefully there's something useful.
One thing I'm struggling with is what the default behavior should be and what set of options should be available. I see value to users (and app developers) in still being able to see the set of extensions available in pre-3.1 contexts, for example. Opinions?
In my patch I added a -c flag to specify core profiles. Maybe we should query/print info for both compat and core profiles. That is, after OpenGL vendor string: VMware, Inc. OpenGL renderer string: Gallium 0.4 on llvmpipe (LLVM 0x300) OpenGL version string: 2.1 Mesa 8.1-devel OpenGL shading language version string: 1.20 OpenGL extensions: [...] We'd have: OpenGL core profile renderer string: Intel... OpenGL core profile version string: 3.1 Mesa 9.0-devel OpenGL core profile shading language version string: 1.40 OpenGL core profile extensions: [...]Otherwise, we'll always be asking bug reporters to resend their glxinfo with -c (or some other unfamiliar option).
-Brian
0001-glxinfo-add-support-for-creating-querying-core-profi.patch
Description: application/pgp-keys
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
