On 05/20/2014 12:21 PM, Chad Versace wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:18:50AM -0700, Stéphane Marchesin wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Brian Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
It seems unusual for a new extension to be defined in its own header file
rather than the eglext.h file.
Is there a particular reason for that? Are there other vendors putting
their extensions in new header files like this?
The reason we did that for Chrome is that it makes updating the khronos headers
easier (no need to untangle private vs khronos extensions, just copy the new
khronos headers over).
Brian, Mesa is one vendor that already does that. Mesa places
unregistered EGL_MESA extensions into eglmesaext.h for the same reason
that Chromium places theirs into eglextchromium.h: to make it easier to
update eglext.h from Khronos subversion.
OK, I didn't even realize that.
EGL_CHROMIUM_sync_control is not yet in the Khronos registry. So, to
follow precedent, Mesa should place it in eglmesaext.h or import the
eglextchromium.h.
Unless someone has a strong preference, I will import eglextchromium.h.
If someone later objects, then we can simply fold eglextchromium.h
into eglmesaext.h
Sounds fine.
-Brian
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
