I know that it won't work. I'm interested in how we will make it not work. I will back out some of my doc changes for now, but there are still too many potholes in the spec, and I do not want to unduly delay in fixing them. Posting from a mobile, pardon my terseness. ~ C. <blockquote type="cite">On Jun 17, 2010 12:05 PM, "Zack Rusin" <<a href="mailto:zackr@vmware.com">zackr@vmware.com</a>> wrote: > Considering the disparate ISAs of nvfx, r300, i915, and things we > don't have public drivers for ...What isn't such a simple thing? > Sure, TGSI has double opcodes. One might think that this is awesome, > and writes a shader using ...We don't provide access to those from anywhere, so that would be very hard. And when we do it's going to be in the next generation of state trackers and these will simply not work with r300g, so as far as I can tell that can't happen. The only scenario here that could make this even remotely possible is GL and the GL state tracker will need to solve this problem with caps like it already does. Runtime checking of those things is the only way it will ever work, docs just don't solve this problem. > Either it asserts (current behavior), or it drops all > the rendering on the floor. We have no wa...Yes, that's not ideal, but that's a different discussion. z </blockquote>