<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed" title="RESOLVED NOTABUG - invalid enum in glEnable, glConvolutionFilter, glSeparableFilter, glColorTable" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61764#c3">Comment # 3</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed" title="RESOLVED NOTABUG - invalid enum in glEnable, glConvolutionFilter, glSeparableFilter, glColorTable" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61764">bug 61764</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:sroland@vmware.com" title="Roland Scheidegger <sroland@vmware.com>"> Roland Scheidegger</a> <pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=61764#c2">comment #2</a>) > I'd still argue that this is a bug. If the extensions were removed, their > implementation should be fully removed (as in, these functions, especially > the EXT/ARB versions of them should be removed), instead of leaving some > sort of a buggy shell, which can still be called (or at least can be tried > to be called). So I'd just fully remove these, so there'd be no confusion. No this is not correct. The problem is there never was a separate ARB_imaging extension, this is (rather was) part of core but optionally supported. As such there's language in the spec which says you have to return invalid_enum for invalid operands and invalid_operation for unsupported functions belonging to this imaging subset.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>