[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 06/13] mesa: Allow glGet* queries on ARB_transform_feedback2 data in ES 3

Ian Romanick idr at freedesktop.org
Tue Dec 11 11:18:29 PST 2012


On 12/11/2012 11:14 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Ian Romanick <idr at freedesktop.org> wrote:
>> On 12/10/2012 02:28 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>>>
>>> Fixes the transform_feedback2_init_defaults test from es3conform.
>>>
>>> The ES 3 spec lists these as TRANSFORM_FEEDBACK_PAUSED and
>>> TRANSFORM_FEEDBACK_ACTIVE.
>>> ---
>>>    src/mesa/main/get.c              |    8 +++++++-
>>>    src/mesa/main/get_hash_params.py |   10 +++++-----
>>>    2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/mesa/main/get.c b/src/mesa/main/get.c
>>> index 146612c..115d3c5 100644
>>> --- a/src/mesa/main/get.c
>>> +++ b/src/mesa/main/get.c
>>> @@ -289,6 +289,13 @@ static const int extra_texture_buffer_object[] = {
>>>       EXTRA_END
>>>    };
>>>
>>> +/* FIXME: Remove this when i965 exposes transform_feedback2 */
>>
>>
>> This comment should be removed.  These get enums are valid if either
>> ARB_transformfeedback2 or ES3, so the check is correct.  XFB2 is a superset
>> of ES3, so I don't think we should assume that every driver that implements
>> ES3 also supports XFB2... even if they all happen to do so.
>
> This is the only case of an extension that  i965 doesn't expose whose
> enums are in ES 3. I suppose some of the other extensions could not be
> exposed but a driver support ES 3, although it seems unlikely.
>
> Should all of the other patches (for extensions that i965 exposes) be
> modified to add EXTRA_API_ES3 to their extra_* blocks? I guess that's
> technically more correct.

In all of the other cases, the driver must expose the extensions in 
order to have ES3.  Note the checks in compute_version_es2.  This is 
because ES3 took the whole extension.  The parts of XFB2 that a need to 
be supported are either already required by meta or are implemented 
completely in core Mesa.  XFB2 is kind of weird in this respect.

So, I don't think any of the other checks need to be modified.



More information about the mesa-dev mailing list