I was getting at your former idea of replacing caps with feature levels. I was also commenting on the proposed José's patch that we should have fine-grained<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Zack Rusin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:zackr@vmware.com">zackr@vmware.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">On Thursday 29 April 2010 15:44:35 Marek Olšák wrote:<br>
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Zack Rusin<br>
</div>> <<a href="mailto:zackr@vmware.com">zackr@vmware.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:zackr@vmware.com">zackr@vmware.com</a>>> wrote: It seems like all we'd<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">> really need is relate those things to<br>
> the feature/api levels it exposes and document it.<br>
><br>
> Feature levels are a pretty bad match for D3D9-level chipsets since the<br>
> hardware is so divergent that you'd need a lot of them. You'd have at<br>
> least 2 (I can come up with 3) levels just for r300g, at least two levels<br>
> for nvfx, and another two levels for the i9xx drivers, provided all these<br>
> drivers want to expose precisely every feature they can support. There is<br>
> a reason for having shader models sm2.0, sm2.0a, and sm2.0b. Moreover this<br>
> Microsoft idea is _absolutely_ useless for a GL driver. I like more the<br>
> idea of having util functions for deriving feature levels from a set of<br>
> caps rather than caps from feature levels.<br>
<br>
</div></div>I'm not sure if you actually looked what Jakob committed, because what you're<br>
describing is what he's done. Or are you arguing against some part of that<br>
implementation?<br>
</blockquote></div><br>I was assuming you'd wanted to return to your former idea of replacing caps with feature levels rather than having what Jakob has committed. If it's not the case then ignore my message.<br>
<br>Also looking at José's patch I think we should have fine-grained queries ideally for each shader stage separately if we want it to be useful at all. The proposed minimum limits are fine except that MaxNativeTexIndirections for ps2.0 should be 4. For an idea how the shader limits vary for r300g, please see the two tables at the beginning of this page:<br>
<a href="http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/R300ToDo">http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/R300ToDo</a><br><br>-Marek<br>