[Mesa-dev] [RFC PATCH 1/4] driconf: add new force_compat_profile option

[Samuel Pitoiset]

On 02/14/2017 01:54 PM, Edmondo Tommasina wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 14, 2017 11:50 AM, "Marek Olšák" <maraeo at gmail.com
> <mailto:maraeo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On Feb 14, 2017 4:11 AM, "Michel Dänzer" <michel at daenzer.net
>     <mailto:michel at daenzer.net>> wrote:
>
>         On 14/02/17 09:28 AM, Samuel Pitoiset wrote:
>         > On 02/13/2017 11:43 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
>         >> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Marek Olšák
>         <maraeo at gmail.com <mailto:maraeo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>         >>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Samuel Pitoiset
>         >>> <samuel.pitoiset at gmail.com
>         <mailto:samuel.pitoiset at gmail.com>> wrote:
>         >>>> On 02/13/2017 04:51 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
>         >>>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Samuel Pitoiset
>         >>>>> <samuel.pitoiset at gmail.com
>         <mailto:samuel.pitoiset at gmail.com>> wrote:
>         >>>>>> On 02/10/2017 10:05 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>         >>>>>>> On 10 February 2017 at 21:04, Emil Velikov
>         >>>>>>> <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com <mailto:emil.l.velikov at gmail.com>>
>         >>>>>>> wrote:
>         >>>>>>>> On 10 February 2017 at 13:41, Samuel Pitoiset
>         >>>>>>>> <samuel.pitoiset at gmail.com
>         <mailto:samuel.pitoiset at gmail.com>>
>         >>>>>>>> wrote:
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>> Mesa currently doesn't allow to create 3.1+
>         compatibility profiles
>         >>>>>>>>> mainly because various features are unimplemented and
>         bugs can
>         >>>>>>>>> happen.
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>> However, some buggy apps request a compat profile
>         without using
>         >>>>>>>>> any old features but they fail to start because Mesa
>         clamps the
>         >>>>>>>>> GLSL version to 130 for compat.
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>> Afaict this statement matches the implementation, yet both
>         >>>>>>>> differ from
>         >>>>>>>> the override name.
>         >>>>>>>> The implementation below is "force_glsl_compat_version".
>         >>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>> I think it's not unreasonable to have both -
>         >>>>>>>> force_compat_profile and
>         >>>>>>>> force_glsl_compat_version.
>         >>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>> s/force_glsl_compat_version/do_not_cap_glsl_compat_version/
>         >>>>>>
>         >>>>>>
>         >>>>>>
>         >>>>>> I would prefer force_glsl_compat_version.
>         >>>>>
>         >>>>>
>         >>>>> The patch really enables compat profiles higher than 3.0. The
>         >>>>> GLSLVersion check reduces the GLSL version, which in turn
>         reduces the
>         >>>>> GL version.
>         >>>>
>         >>>>
>         >>>> so, force_compat_profile as I suggested initially makes
>         more sense
>         >>>> to you?
>         >>>
>         >>> Sort of. It doesn't really force a compat profile. It only
>         allows
>         >>> higher GL versions for compat profiles.
>         >>>
>         >>> Marek
>         >>
>         >> You have my Rb whether or not you change the name.
>         >
>         > Thanks Marek.
>         >
>         > If I have no strong objections, I think I will push this
>         series as-is in
>         > the next few days.
>
>         FWIW, I agree with others that "force_compat_profile" seems quite
>         misleading and confusing. I don't have a better suggestion though.
>
>
>     "lift_compat_version_limit"?
>
>
> "ignore_compat_version_limit"
>
> "allow_higher_compat_version"?

"allow_higher_compat_version" looks good to me. Anyone else? :)

>
> edmondo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
>