On 07/22/2013 10:42 AM, Paul Berry wrote:
[snip]
I don't mind if someone wants to do some research in the background on
questions 1 and 2 above, but IMHO we can safely proceed with this plan
even without that information. In all likelihood, the only thing we're
going to learn by answering questi
On 07/22/2013 10:42 AM, Paul Berry wrote:
On 21 July 2013 23:14, Ian Romanick wrote:
On 07/19/2013 11:48 AM, Paul Berry wrote:
Just going for 3.2 and punting on the extension for now seems like the
right way to go, but I also don't want to paint ourselves into a "we have
to rearchitect the
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Paul Berry wrote:
> On 21 July 2013 23:14, Ian Romanick wrote:
>>
>> On 07/19/2013 11:48 AM, Paul Berry wrote:
>>>
>>> (TL;DR: geometry shaders are humming along, but because of a hitch I've
>>> run into, I'm going to change gears and implement GLSL 1.50-style
>>>
On 21 July 2013 23:14, Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 07/19/2013 11:48 AM, Paul Berry wrote:
>
>> (TL;DR: geometry shaders are humming along, but because of a hitch I've
>> run into, I'm going to change gears and implement GLSL 1.50-style
>> geometry shaders first rather than ARB_geometry_shader4 funct
On 07/19/2013 11:48 AM, Paul Berry wrote:
(TL;DR: geometry shaders are humming along, but because of a hitch I've
run into, I'm going to change gears and implement GLSL 1.50-style
geometry shaders first rather than ARB_geometry_shader4 functionality.
This means some piglit tests will need to be r
(TL;DR: geometry shaders are humming along, but because of a hitch I've run
into, I'm going to change gears and implement GLSL 1.50-style geometry
shaders first rather than ARB_geometry_shader4 functionality. This means
some piglit tests will need to be rewritten).
Hello all--
As some of you may
