[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 1/3] mesa: Enable enums for OES_viewport_array

[Ilia Mirkin]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Anuj Phogat <anuj.phogat at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> 2016-09-29 14:42 GMT-04:00 Anuj Phogat <anuj.phogat at gmail.com>:
>>> Signed-off-by: Anuj Phogat <anuj.phogat at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu>
>>> ---
>>>  src/mesa/main/get.c              | 6 ++++++
>>>  src/mesa/main/get_hash_params.py | 8 ++++----
>>>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/mesa/main/get.c b/src/mesa/main/get.c
>>> index e7ebc7f..64a4b0e 100644
>>> --- a/src/mesa/main/get.c
>>> +++ b/src/mesa/main/get.c
>>> @@ -405,6 +405,12 @@ static const int extra_ARB_viewport_array_or_oes_geometry_shader[] = {
>>>     EXTRA_END
>>>  };
>>>
>>> +static const int extra_ARB_viewport_array_or_oes_viewport_array[] = {
>>> +   EXT(ARB_viewport_array),
>>> +   EXT(OES_viewport_array),
>>> +   EXTRA_END
>>> +};
>>
>> I originally had this patch in my series but took it out - why isn't
>> it reasonable to just flip on the ARB_viewport_array bit and move on?
>> (i.e. decree that in order to enable OES_viewport_array you must also
>> enable ARB_viewport_array)
>>
> I don't see a big reason to prefer one or the other. I noticed we are
> doing it this way for few other gles extensions and found it slightly
> cleaner. Otherwise I don't have a strong preference.

I don't feel too strongly about it either. If you think this is
better, this series is

Reviewed-by: Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu>