> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ilia > Mirkin > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 2:03 PM > To: Lofstedt, Marta > Cc: Marta Lofstedt; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mesa: enable enums for OES_geometry_shader > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Lofstedt, Marta <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > >> Ilia Mirkin > >> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:46 PM > >> To: Lofstedt, Marta > >> Cc: Marta Lofstedt; [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mesa: enable enums for OES_geometry_shader > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Lofstedt, Marta > >> <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > >> >> Ilia Mirkin > >> >> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:25 PM > >> >> To: Marta Lofstedt > >> >> Cc: [email protected]; Lofstedt, Marta > >> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mesa: enable enums for > OES_geometry_shader > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Marta Lofstedt > >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > + case EXTRA_EXT_GPU5_GS: > >> >> > + api_check = GL_TRUE; > >> >> > + api_found = (ctx->Extensions.ARB_gpu_shader5 || > >> >> > + _mesa_has_OES_geometry_shader(ctx)); > >> >> > + break; > >> >> > + case EXTRA_EXT_VIEWPORT_GS: > >> >> > + api_check = GL_TRUE; > >> >> > + api_found = (ctx->Extensions.ARB_viewport_array || > >> >> > + _mesa_has_OES_geometry_shader(ctx)); > >> >> > + break; > >> >> > >> >> You can do these without the special tokens. Or did you mean && > here? > >> > > >> > I am pretty sure that our previous discussions on this topic ended > >> > up with > >> || to be preferable in these cases, but if you want && I will change. > >> > >> I actually don't want either. What I'm saying is that if you want ||, > >> then you don't have to add these EXTRA_EXT_GPU5_GS things -- using > >> the regular mechanism for composing tokens will get you ||. You only > >> need to use these special tokens if you want &&. > >> > > If by the "regular" mechanism mean: > > +static const int extra_ARB_viewport_array_or_geometry_shader[] = { > > + EXT(ARB_viewport_array), > > + EXT(OES_geometry_shader), > > + EXTRA_END > > +}; > > I had that in an earlier patch, where I interpreted your comment as a > rejection. > > Nope, that's precisely what I mean. The only distinction between the two is > the extra check for the ES context. If you want to preserve that, just create > a > single EXTRA_EXT_ES_GS token which just does > > api_found = _mesa_has_OES_geometry_shader(ctx) > > and then you can use that instead of EXT(OES_geometry_shader). The > distinction is pretty minor, of course. Exposing one or two enums that you're > supposed to error on is probably not the end of the world. > Either way is good with me though. > So, to check if we understand each other. Would it be OK to you, if I replace: EXTRA_EXT_VIEWPORT_GS and EXTRA_EXT_GPU5_GS, both in value_extra and the check_extra(...) switch,
with: EXTRA_EXT_ES_GS in value_extra and according to your suggestion above in check_extra(...) And use EXTRA_EXT_ES_GS instead of EXT(OES_geometry_shader) in: extra_ARB_viewport_array_or_geometry_shader[] and similar to: extra_ARB_gpu_shader5_and_geometry_shader [] > > I doubt I flat-out rejected the quoted approach earlier, but I may have > commented about how it's not the perfect thing :) > > -ilia _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
