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

[Lofstedt, Marta]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ibmirkin at gmail.com [mailto:ibmirkin at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ilia
> Mirkin
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:46 PM
> To: Lofstedt, Marta
> Cc: Marta Lofstedt; mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mesa: enable enums for OES_geometry_shader
> 
> 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 &&.
>
If by the "regular" mechanism mean:
+static const int extra_ARB_viewport_array_or_geometry_shader[] = {
+   EXT(ARB_viewport_array),
+   EXT(OES_geometry_shader),
+   EXTRA_END
+};
I had that in an earlier patch, where I interpreted your comment as a rejection.

If you mean something else, please enlighten me.

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