On 02/13/2017 11:43 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Samuel Pitoiset
<samuel.pitoi...@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.pitoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/10/2017 10:05 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
On 10 February 2017 at 21:04, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Samuel,
On 10 February 2017 at 13:41, Samuel Pitoiset
<samuel.pitoi...@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.
Marek
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
