Am 28.10.2012 20:51, schrieb Kenneth Graunke: > This makes sense to me. The original reason for splitting out the ANGLE > vs. EXT bits was that the ANGLE extension only requires decompression, > while the other two require both compression and decompression. So that > one could be advertised even without libtxc_dxtn. > > Of course, now that we've decided to simply lie and fall back to > GL_COMPRESSED_RGB[A] when the user asks for online compression and we > don't have libtxc_dxtn, this isn't a problem. So we can simplify.
I can see how one wants to lie about EXT_texture_compression_s3tc and give users a broken GL by default, since that's what they want. AFAIK previously it was a driconf option, but enabling it was too much of a burden on the user. Still there might be some users that want standard-compliant behaviour without having libtxc_dxtn installed. Why not give them a driconf option they can use to disable EXT_texture_compression_s3tc when libtxc_dxtn is not there? Philipp _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
