On 08/14/2014 12:00 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu>
>>> ---
>>> src/mesa/main/extensions.c | 1 +
>>> src/mesa/main/mtypes.h | 1 +
>>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/mesa/main/extensions.c b/src/mesa/main/extensions.c
>>> index 8658ca8..3dcb199 100644
>>> --- a/src/mesa/main/extensions.c
>>> +++ b/src/mesa/main/extensions.c
>>> @@ -101,6 +101,7 @@ static const struct extension extension_table[] = {
>>> { "GL_ARB_depth_buffer_float",
>>> o(ARB_depth_buffer_float), GL, 2008 },
>>> { "GL_ARB_depth_clamp", o(ARB_depth_clamp),
>>> GL, 2003 },
>>> { "GL_ARB_depth_texture", o(ARB_depth_texture),
>>> GLL, 2001 },
>>> + { "GL_ARB_derivative_control",
>>> o(ARB_derivative_control), GLC, 2014 },
>>
>> No reason to be core-only that I can see.
>
> I guess we can just leave it up to the drivers to turn on the
> extension if GLSL >= 4.00? Seems ugly. Also seems like a pretty
> arbitrary requirement.
I've also made a query in Khronos about this. In my (brief) research, I
couldn't find any reason why it should be limited to 4.0+. There were
some changes in the spec about derivitaves versus flow control, but I
was pretty sure those changes happened before 4.0. Since this spec has
interactions with flow control, it would make sense to limit it to GLSL
versions with the updated language.
I think we implement the updated requirements even in out 3.x drivers,
so this may not be a problem in practice.
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
