Am Donnerstag, den 01.11.2018, 10:34 -0400 schrieb Ilia Mirkin: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:31 AM Gert Wollny <[email protected] > m> wrote: > > > > Am Donnerstag, den 01.11.2018, 10:15 -0400 schrieb Ilia Mirkin: > > > So ... thinking about this a little more ... how is the new > > > enable > > > different from the existing "EXT_framebuffer_sRGB" enable? When > > > would > > > one be set but not the other? > > > > This one is a GLES extension, there, if the surface attached to a > > framebuffer is sRGB capable, it behaves always like > > glEnable(GL_FRAMEBUFFER_SRGB) is set. With this extension, control > > is > > given back to the application. To keep compatibility, the default > > is > > still the same behaviour as without the extension (which is > > different > > from desktop GL). > > Yeah, I get that the details of ext itself are different. I'm talking > about the enable bit -- would one ever be set but not the other? If > so, why have two bits? If a virglrenderer GLES host driver doesn't support the extension, then mesa/virgl can not expose the it (I tried it, it doesn't pass the tests), so there you would have EXT_framebuffer_sRGB, but not EXT_sRGB_write_control.
Best, Gert _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
