On 30/12/14 22:20, Laura Ekstrand wrote: > To run this partial implementation, > > export MESA_EXTENSION_OVERRIDE=+GL_ARB_direct_state_access > Indeed that does the job. Yet it seems that I was slightly confused with the usage/application of the boolean variable(s) - i.e. they seem to be used when an extension interacts with the rest of the standard.
Or to put it in other words - I would assume that this series allows new errors to be reported and/or new tokens to be accepted (for existing functions), even when the extension is not present/disabled. Seems that other extensions in mesa check the extension status prior to following the amendments stated in the spec. I'm not an expert on the topic, so take this with a healthy pinch of salt :) -Emil > I just did that and my dsa piglit tests ran fine. > > Laura > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com > <mailto:emil.l.veli...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On 16/12/14 01:22, Laura Ekstrand wrote: > > diff --git a/src/mesa/main/extensions.c b/src/mesa/main/extensions.c > > index f0e2f89..6aba159 100644 > > --- a/src/mesa/main/extensions.c > > +++ b/src/mesa/main/extensions.c > > @@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ static const struct extension extension_table[] = { > > { "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), GL, 2014 }, > > + { "GL_ARB_direct_state_access", o(dummy_false), > GL, 2014 }, > Hi Laura, > > How can one test the partial implementation considering the above > dummy_false ? > I was under the impression that one adds the boolean variable, so that > we can override it (in early development via > MESA_EXTENSION_OVERRIDE=+foo) and have fun with the tests/piglits. > > Not 100% sure on that one though. > > Cheers, > Emil > > _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
