[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 01/41] glapi: Added ARB_direct_state_access.xml file.
Emil Velikov
emil.l.velikov at gmail.com
Sat Jan 3 07:17:46 PST 2015
On 30/12/14 22:20, Laura Ekstrand wrote:
> To run this partial implementation,
>
> export MESA_EXTENSION_OVERRIDE=+GL_ARB_direct_state_access
>
Indeed that does the job. Yet it seems that I was slightly confused with
the usage/application of the boolean variable(s) - i.e. they seem to be
used when an extension interacts with the rest of the standard.
Or to put it in other words - I would assume that this series allows new
errors to be reported and/or new tokens to be accepted (for existing
functions), even when the extension is not present/disabled.
Seems that other extensions in mesa check the extension status prior to
following the amendments stated in the spec.
I'm not an expert on the topic, so take this with a healthy pinch of salt :)
-Emil
> I just did that and my dsa piglit tests ran fine.
>
> Laura
>
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com
> <mailto:emil.l.velikov at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On 16/12/14 01:22, Laura Ekstrand wrote:
> > diff --git a/src/mesa/main/extensions.c b/src/mesa/main/extensions.c
> > index f0e2f89..6aba159 100644
> > --- a/src/mesa/main/extensions.c
> > +++ b/src/mesa/main/extensions.c
> > @@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ static const struct extension extension_table[] = {
> > { "GL_ARB_depth_clamp", o(ARB_depth_clamp), GL, 2003 },
> > { "GL_ARB_depth_texture", o(ARB_depth_texture), GLL, 2001 },
> > { "GL_ARB_derivative_control", o(ARB_derivative_control), GL, 2014 },
> > + { "GL_ARB_direct_state_access", o(dummy_false), GL, 2014 },
> Hi Laura,
>
> How can one test the partial implementation considering the above
> dummy_false ?
> I was under the impression that one adds the boolean variable, so that
> we can override it (in early development via
> MESA_EXTENSION_OVERRIDE=+foo) and have fun with the tests/piglits.
>
> Not 100% sure on that one though.
>
> Cheers,
> Emil
>
>
More information about the mesa-dev
mailing list