Adam Jackson writes:
> On Tue, 2018-10-30 at 16:38 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> Eric Anholt writes:
>>
>> > The CTS requires a 565-no-depth-no-stencil config for ES 3.0, but at depth
>> > 24 of X11 we wouldn't do so. We can satisfy that bad requirement using a
>> > pbuffer-only visual with wha
On Tue, 2018-10-30 at 16:38 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Eric Anholt writes:
>
> > The CTS requires a 565-no-depth-no-stencil config for ES 3.0, but at depth
> > 24 of X11 we wouldn't do so. We can satisfy that bad requirement using a
> > pbuffer-only visual with whatever other buffers the driver
Eric Anholt writes:
> The CTS requires a 565-no-depth-no-stencil config for ES 3.0, but at depth
> 24 of X11 we wouldn't do so. We can satisfy that bad requirement using a
> pbuffer-only visual with whatever other buffers the driver happens to have
> given us.
Anyone? Still concerned about get
The CTS requires a 565-no-depth-no-stencil config for ES 3.0, but at depth
24 of X11 we wouldn't do so. We can satisfy that bad requirement using a
pbuffer-only visual with whatever other buffers the driver happens to have
given us.
---
Anyone who's done CTS runs have opinions on this one? It se
