On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> On 29.09.2016 00:00, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Nicolai Hähnle
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28.09.2016 16:20, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Nicolai Hähnle
wrote:
>
On 29.09.2016 00:00, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
On 28.09.2016 16:20, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Nicolai Hähnle
wrote:
From: Nicolai Hähnle
The difference to the virtually identical ARB_robustness (which is
alre
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Bas Nieuwenhuizen
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
>> On 28.09.2016 16:20, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Nicolai Hähnle
>>> wrote:
From: Nicolai Hähnle
The difference to the virtual
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> On 28.09.2016 16:20, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Nicolai Hähnle
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Nicolai Hähnle
>>>
>>> The difference to the virtually identical ARB_robustness (which is
>>> already
>>> enabled uncondi
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Edward O'Callaghan
wrote:
>
>
> On 09/29/2016 12:13 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Edward O'Callaghan
>> wrote:
>>> Hmm, does this actually pass all the piglits and so on because I don't
>>> see how you are dealing with the lost context
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> On 28.09.2016 16:20, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Nicolai Hähnle
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Nicolai Hähnle
>>>
>>> The difference to the virtually identical ARB_robustness (which is
>>> already
>>> enabled uncond
On 28.09.2016 16:20, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
From: Nicolai Hähnle
The difference to the virtually identical ARB_robustness (which is already
enabled unconditionally) is miniscule and handled elsewhere, but this set
of caps seems like the right
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> From: Nicolai Hähnle
>
> The difference to the virtually identical ARB_robustness (which is already
> enabled unconditionally) is miniscule and handled elsewhere, but this set
> of caps seems like the right thing to require for this extensi
On 09/29/2016 12:13 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Edward O'Callaghan
> wrote:
>> Hmm, does this actually pass all the piglits and so on because I don't
>> see how you are dealing with the lost context situation from the
>> KHR_robustness spec?
>
> We don't have lost
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Edward O'Callaghan
wrote:
> Hmm, does this actually pass all the piglits and so on because I don't
> see how you are dealing with the lost context situation from the
> KHR_robustness spec?
We don't have lost contexts, we have lost machines.
Until the GPU reset is
Hmm, does this actually pass all the piglits and so on because I don't
see how you are dealing with the lost context situation from the
KHR_robustness spec?
Cheers,
Edward.
On 09/28/2016 11:52 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> Reviewed-by: Marek Olšák
>
> Marek
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Nic
Reviewed-by: Marek Olšák
Marek
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> From: Nicolai Hähnle
>
> The difference to the virtually identical ARB_robustness (which is already
> enabled unconditionally) is miniscule and handled elsewhere, but this set
> of caps seems like the righ
From: Nicolai Hähnle
The difference to the virtually identical ARB_robustness (which is already
enabled unconditionally) is miniscule and handled elsewhere, but this set
of caps seems like the right thing to require for this extension.
---
docs/features.txt | 2 +-
docs/reln
13 matches
Mail list logo