[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 2/2][RFC] docs: Add the 2015 ARB extensions

[Marek Olšák]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Thomas Helland
<thomashelland90 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2015-08-12 18:56 GMT+02:00 Kenneth Graunke <kenneth at whitecape.org>:
>> On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 06:32:50 PM Thomas Helland wrote:
>>> 2015-08-12 17:48 GMT+02:00 Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu>:
>>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Thomas Helland
>>> > <thomashelland90 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Helland <thomashelland90 at gmail.com>
>>> >> ---
>>> >> This adds a section for the extensions nvidia has chosen to
>>> >> call the "GL ARB 2015 Extensions" unveiled at SIGGRAPH.
>>> >
>>> > There are ARB extensions released every year (or more often, not
>>> > sure)... we don't track all ARB extensions. Why are these so special
>>> > vs e.g. the ones released along with GL 4.5 but that weren't included
>>> > in the spec? Or any of the other ones...
>>> >
>>>
>>> Well. They're not really special I guess. This just follows from the
>>> discussion that went down on irc between me, glennk, fredrikh, ++.
>>>
>>> > Should GL3.txt just become extension-implementation-status.txt and
>>> > list all non-vendor-specific extensions? So far it has stuck to actual
>>> > GL versions (and more recently GLES).
>>> >
>>>
>>> We can keep it GL / GLES versions only. Or we can extend it to a
>>> extension-implementation-status.txt thing. Or we can split it
>>> into two different files. I really don't care to much either way.
>>>
>>> If we end up adding these extensions to the file then a rename
>>> and adding other ARB's is probably the way to go. There are
>>> positive and negative sides to both approaches, and its not
>>> my call to decide how, and if, we want this. It gives a nice overview
>>> but at the same time it has PR- and "needs-to-be-kept-updated"-
>>> implications that we may not want. I'm all ears for suggestions.
>>>
>>> -Thomas
>>
>> I like the idea of adding an "ARB Extensions" section and listing all
>> the ARB extensions that aren't part of a particular GL version - simply
>> in addition to the existing content, rather than reorganizing it.
>>
>> GL3.txt has been a misnomer for a while, but I don't care whether we
>> rename it or not; it doesn't bother me.
>>
>> --Ken
>
> I've assembled a list of extensions I *think* are not demanded by
> any current openGL specs, but I may have missed some.
> (I find it weird that I VAO's in any of the specs, for example)
> I could add all of them to a separate section to track them,
> or I can leave it as is and drop this patch. Up to you guys.
>
> 2.          GLX_ARB_get_proc_address
> 4.          WGL_ARB_buffer_region
> 8.          WGL_ARB_extensions_string
> 9.          WGL_ARB_pixel_format
> 10.         WGL_ARB_make_current_read
> 11.         WGL_ARB_pbuffer
> 15.         GL_ARB_vertex_blend
> 16.         GL_ARB_matrix_palette
> 20.         WGL_ARB_render_texture
> 24.         GL_ARB_shadow_ambient
> 36.         GL_ARB_fragment_program_shadow

All extensions above are considered old crap. Also, WGL extensions? Seriously?

I personally think adding a list of non-core extensions to docs is
useless and will only distract people.

Marek