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