[Mesa-dev] [PATCH v4] mesa: enable enums for OES_geometry_shader

[Ilia Mirkin]

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Lofstedt, Marta
<marta.lofstedt at intel.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ibmirkin at gmail.com [mailto:ibmirkin at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ilia
>> Mirkin
>> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:25 PM
>> To: Marta Lofstedt
>> Cc: mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org; Lofstedt, Marta
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mesa: enable enums for OES_geometry_shader
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Marta Lofstedt
>> <marta.lofstedt at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > +      case EXTRA_EXT_GPU5_GS:
>> > +         api_check = GL_TRUE;
>> > +         api_found = (ctx->Extensions.ARB_gpu_shader5 ||
>> > +                      _mesa_has_OES_geometry_shader(ctx));
>> > +         break;
>> > +      case EXTRA_EXT_VIEWPORT_GS:
>> > +         api_check = GL_TRUE;
>> > +         api_found = (ctx->Extensions.ARB_viewport_array ||
>> > +                      _mesa_has_OES_geometry_shader(ctx));
>> > +         break;
>>
>> You can do these without the special tokens. Or did you mean && here?
>
> I am pretty sure that our previous discussions on this topic ended up with || to be preferable in these cases, but if you want && I will change.

I actually don't want either. What I'm saying is that if you want ||,
then you don't have to add these EXTRA_EXT_GPU5_GS things -- using the
regular mechanism for composing tokens will get you ||. You only need
to use these special tokens if you want &&.

I haven't thought about which one is desirable though. (Or rather,
I've forgotten all thoughts I had on the matter.)

  -ilia