Hi all,
Last fall, I put together a proposal for an updated Linux OpenGL ABI
specification:
https://github.com/aritger/linux-opengl-abi-proposal/blob/master/linux-opengl-abi-proposal.txt
but then got distracted. I'd like to try to resurrect the discussion.
>From the earlier email thread and some discussion at XDC2012, it sounded
like people thought the general ideas were reasonable. However, there are
a variety of details to work through, called out in the issues section.
To get things moving, I thought I, and a few others from NVIDIA, would
try to prototype some of the vendor-neutral API Libraries described in the
document. That might give us all something more concrete to play with.
Feedback on anything in the full proposal welcome, but here are a few
more specific questions:
* For a prototype, what is a reasonable version of OpenGL to provide
in libOpenGL.so.1? There are a variety of options enumerated in the
full proposal for how to handle sets of entry points, but my sense is
that the simplest solution is for libOpenGL.so.1 to provide a reasonable
base version of OpenGL, and then all entry points for extensions and
later OpenGL versions to be accessed through {egl,glX}GetProcAddress.
* From some initial reading, Mesa's glapi (src/mapi/glapi/) looks useful
for the basis of libOpenGL.so.1's dispatching. Would it be reasonable
to use glapi in the prototype libOpenGL.so.1?
* The vendor-neutral libEGL.so.1 is intended to be a thin layer that
would dispatch to the appropriate vendor. It looks like the frontend of
Mesa's EGL implementation would be a good basis for the vendor-neutral
libEGL.so.1. Would it be reasonable to use that for the prototype?
Thanks,
- Andy
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
