Summary: | dispatch_sanity test lumps GL4.0+ functions into 4.3 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Mesa | Reporter: | Matt Turner <mattst88> |
Component: | Other | Assignee: | mesa-dev |
Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | medium | CC: | idr, jljusten |
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | Other | ||
OS: | All | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
i915 platform: | i915 features: |
Description
Matt Turner
2013-03-21 20:28:51 UTC
(In reply to comment #0) > I noticed: > > { "glDrawTransformFeedback", 43, -1 }, > { "glDrawTransformFeedbackStream", 43, -1 }, > > which are from ARB_transform_feedback2 and 3 respectively are in GL 4.0 but > the test says they must exist by 4.3. I believe that Jordan did that because Mesa already supports those extensions via the extensions. Any driver that supports OpenGL 4.0 will populate those dispatch pointers. > I started to fix this, but then noticed that we don't have lists for 4.0, > 4.1, or 4.2, so the problem is probably much larger than just these two > extensions. > > Maybe we should strip out all of the lines that say "Add to xml" and fix up > the others. > > I also notice > > /* GL_ARB_internalformat_query */ > { "glGetInternalformativ", 30, -1 }, > > but ARB_internalformat_query is part of 4.2 and not a required part of 3.0. > I think there's some general confusion about what the version field is > supposed to mean. However, every driver supports the extension, so the function is in the dispatch table. > IIRC, this is why Ian suggested having separate structs for each version, > like how GL ES 2 and 3 are handled. I'm not a huge fan of the version field in the dispatch sanity tests. :) But I don't think that will solve this particular problem. I think when we add the next big batch of functions (probably for ARB_geometry_shader4), we should refactor this test a bit. Hi Matt, do you think we should just close this? Or do you still think the test should be re-factored? (In reply to Timothy Arceri from comment #2) > Hi Matt, do you think we should just close this? Or do you still think the > test should be re-factored? meh :) |
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.