[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 01/41] glapi: Added ARB_direct_state_access.xml file.

Emil Velikov emil.l.velikov at gmail.com
Sat Jan 3 07:17:46 PST 2015


On 30/12/14 22:20, Laura Ekstrand wrote:
> To run this partial implementation,
> 
> export MESA_EXTENSION_OVERRIDE=+GL_ARB_direct_state_access
> 
Indeed that does the job. Yet it seems that I was slightly confused with
the usage/application of the boolean variable(s) - i.e. they seem to be
used when an extension interacts with the rest of the standard.

Or to put it in other words - I would assume that this series allows new
errors to be reported and/or new tokens to be accepted (for existing
functions), even when the extension is not present/disabled.

Seems that other extensions in mesa check the extension status prior to
following the amendments stated in the spec.

I'm not an expert on the topic, so take this with a healthy pinch of salt :)


-Emil

> I just did that and my dsa piglit tests ran fine.
> 
> Laura
> 
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com
> <mailto:emil.l.velikov at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 16/12/14 01:22, Laura Ekstrand wrote:
>     > diff --git a/src/mesa/main/extensions.c b/src/mesa/main/extensions.c
>     > index f0e2f89..6aba159 100644
>     > --- a/src/mesa/main/extensions.c
>     > +++ b/src/mesa/main/extensions.c
>     > @@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ static const struct extension extension_table[] = {
>     >     { "GL_ARB_depth_clamp",                         o(ARB_depth_clamp),                         GL,             2003 },
>     >     { "GL_ARB_depth_texture",                       o(ARB_depth_texture),                       GLL,            2001 },
>     >     { "GL_ARB_derivative_control",                  o(ARB_derivative_control),                  GL,             2014 },
>     > +   { "GL_ARB_direct_state_access",                 o(dummy_false),                             GL,             2014 },
>     Hi Laura,
> 
>     How can one test the partial implementation considering the above
>     dummy_false ?
>     I was under the impression that one adds the boolean variable, so that
>     we can override it (in early development via
>     MESA_EXTENSION_OVERRIDE=+foo) and have fun with the tests/piglits.
> 
>     Not 100% sure on that one though.
> 
>     Cheers,
>     Emil
> 
> 



More information about the mesa-dev mailing list