On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Brian Paul <brian.e.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Ian Romanick <i...@freedesktop.org> wrote: > >> On 11/19/2015 05:40 PM, Nanley Chery wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Brian Paul <bri...@vmware.com >> > <mailto:bri...@vmware.com>> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Nanley, >> > >> > >> > Hi Brian, >> > >> > >> > Maybe you can fix an issue I have with the new extension code. >> > >> > Previously, I could do something like export >> > MESA_EXTENSION_OVERRIDE="-ARB_clear_buffer_object" and I would no >> > longer see it in the GL_EXTENSIONS string, even if it was an "always >> > on" extension. >> > >> > Now when I try that I get: >> > >> > Mesa 11.1.0-devel implementation error: Trying to disable >> > permanently enabled extensions: GL_ARB_get_texture_sub_image >> > Please report at >> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Mesa >> > >> > The whole point of the "-GL_EXT_foobar" syntax was to hide an >> > extension from the application when it queries the driver's >> extensions. >> > >> > Can you please fix this so it works as before? >> > >> > >> > I have two branches that provide the ability to disable permanently >> > enabled extensions: >> > 1. The first only modifies the extension strings and is located here: >> > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~nchery/mesa/commit/?h=mod_always_on >> > <http://cgit.freedesktop.org/%7Enchery/mesa/commit/?h=mod_always_on> >> > 2. The second modifies the extension strings and disables the extension >> > within the driver (assuming appropriate the helper function is used). It >> > also provides some performance benefits. : >> > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~nchery/mesa/commit/?h=init_ext_vals >> > <http://cgit.freedesktop.org/%7Enchery/mesa/commit/?h=init_ext_vals> >> > >> > I'd appreciate any feedback on the two approaches as I work to get the >> > feature upstreamed. >> >> I think #2 might be better, but there's a lot of churn. I don't know >> that we want that much churn right around the time of the release branch >> point, and I think it would be good to have this resolved in 11.1. I >> also have a few bits of feedback in #2, so it might take a couple >> iterations before that could land. >> >> > Since 11.1 is coming up, can we go with the simpler #1 for now, then go to > #2 after 11.1 branches? > > I don't mind going this route. Unfortunately, I'm running into presently unexplainable linker errors in the process of making the gtest for this feature. - Nanley
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
