On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 2016-09-29 14:42 GMT-04:00 Anuj Phogat <anuj.pho...@gmail.com>:
>> Signed-off-by: Anuj Phogat <anuj.pho...@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Ilia Mirkin <imir...@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.
> -ilia
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
