[Mesa-dev] Nuking GL_NV_vertex_program
brianp at vmware.com
Wed Oct 10 08:42:00 PDT 2012
On 10/10/2012 09:08 AM, Brian Paul wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 08:59 AM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
>> On 10/10/2012 07:42 AM, Jose Fonseca wrote:
>>> I think certain versions of SPEC viewperf rely on NV_vertex_program.
>>> See http://www.mesa3d.org/viewperf.html
>>> We had some internal hacks to support just the bare minimum of to
>>> run some of these tests, but they were not accepted on mesa proper.
>>> (There is some bug report on fdo about it).
>> Ugh. I'd forgotten about SPECviewperf.
>> I guess this begs the question: do we care?
>> According to that page, viewperf11 is a buggy application (using
>> extensions without checking for them), and to get it working properly,
>> we'd need to implement two more legacy extensions that aren't
>> necessary for anything else. Or add the minimum required and driconf
>> workarounds to falsely advertise them.
>> In my experience, viewperf is extremely frustrating to work with and
>> isn't useful for testing either correctness nor performance. The only
>> reason anyone appears to care is that it's some kind of "industry
>> standard" benchmark. These days, however, it seems more people care
>> about glbenchmark.com's benchmarks, 3DMarkMobileES 2.0, and various
>> games. At least on my team, no one is measuring us against
>> Do people still care about viewperf on your side?
> Unfortunately, the people that review VMware's products (Workstation,
> Fusion, etc) often run Viewperf and we've been dinged by reviewers
> when they find issues with it. Part of the motivation for creating
> http://www.mesa3d.org/viewperf.html was to educate reviewers about the
> issues with Viewperf 11.
> I've reported the VP11 issues to SPEC and was told that they'd be
> addressed for Viewperf 12. Unfortunately, there's no way for the
> public to review/test VP12 before it's released (at least not without
> paying a very hefty membership fee) so we have to just cross our
> fingers that VP12 will be better implemented than VP11.
> Can we please hold off on this change for just a bit while we review
> the situation?
OK, I think it's good news.
I hadn't looked at VP in a while but it looks like all the
vertex/fragment programs are actually of the ARB variety, not the NV
The catia-03 test uses GL_NV_fragment_program2 and
GL_NV_vertex_program3 (without checking if they're actually
supported!) but those extensions are layered on
GL_ARB_vertex/fragment_program, not GL_NV_vertex/fragment_program.
The VP source code definitely has calls to glProgramStringARB() but I
don't see any calls to glLoadProgramNV() which is what NV programs use.
So, I think we're OK with viewperf.
I'll do a review of Eric's patches too...
More information about the mesa-dev