On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23/01/15 20:51, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com > > <mailto:emil.l.veli...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > On 05/01/15 17:45, Laura Ekstrand wrote: > > > This comment is vague. Do you have a specific recommendation for > the > > > code here? > > > > > Seems like I'm way too subtle - yes I have a few. > > > > > > 1. Add ARB_direct_state_access to struct gl_extension > > --- a/src/mesa/main/mtypes.h > > +++ b/src/mesa/main/mtypes.h > > @@ -3731,6 +3731,7 @@ struct gl_extensions > > GLboolean ARB_depth_clamp; > > GLboolean ARB_depth_texture; > > GLboolean ARB_derivative_control; > > + GLboolean ARB_direct_state_access > > GLboolean ARB_draw_buffers_blend; > > GLboolean ARB_draw_elements_base_vertex; > > > > > > 2. Use it in the extensions table. > > --- 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(ARB_direct_state_access), GL, 2014 }, > > > > > > 3. Make use of if when the spec amends existing behaviour - most of > the > > spec text as of section "New Tokens" onwards. Clearly with this > series > > you're adding the new entry points(functions) so it does not apply > > here :) > > > > > > if (foo->Extensions.ARB_direct_state_access) { > > .... > > } > > > > > > Pretty much every extension that was added to mesa follows this > approach > > so keeping up with traditions is always nice. > > > > > > Yes, and no... We have the table of booleans in gl_extensions so that > > we can expose different extensions/behavior on different drivers. > > However, ARB_direct_state_access doesn't actually add new functionality, > > just new ways of getting at old functionality. We *should* be able to > > implement it in a driver-agnostic way entirely within core mesa. > > Therefore, there's no reason to be able to shut it off on a per-driver > > basis and no reason for the flag in gl_extensions. If we find that, for > > some reason, we only want to support it in core contexts or that it adds > > something some drivers can't handle it, then we'll need the flag. > True, yet the usual approach so far had been: > 1. add the flag > 2. enable when/where possible > 3. evaluate if things can be enabled for everyone > 4. drop it (replace with dummy_true). > Why bother ? See below. > The "usual approach" is for extensions that add functionality and require per-driver implementation. This extension is kind of unique in that *nothing* it adds is per-driver (as far as I know). > There will be a point where the extension will still be dummy_false, yet > the amendments to the spec will be applied. > What "ammendments to the spec"? Once it gets implemented, we'll turn it on. > At that point there will be a "few" reports from your QA team and other > people, that piglit (other) has regressed. Going the usual route will > save you that, at the cost of having one extra commit worth > (presumingly) ~50loc. > > Hope with ^^ things make (a bit more) sense :) > Not really. Right now it's not even 100% implemented, so it needs to be off for everyone. As far as anyone can tell, it will go directly from dummy_false to dummy_true. If we do find something in the way of implementing it that can't be done on some drivers, we can add the flag and then turn it on per-driver instead of turning it on for everyone. I'm really not seeing how a per-driver flag will do any good. --Jason
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
