On 03/23/2015 01:28 PM, Matthew Dawson wrote:
On March 23, 2015 10:21:32 AM Brian Paul wrote:
On 03/22/2015 05:50 PM, Matthew Dawson wrote:
If it isn't fully realized, is it worth it to test/implement this
section, since its removed in the core profile? Would a reduced
implementation to fix this test be OK (ignoring things like passing it
through the vertex shader)?
If this is all about fixing the piglit draw-pixel-with-texture test, I'm
not sure it's worthwhile. As I said, it's a "feature" that few people
care about.
There definitely are apps out there that use glDrawPixels() (a fair
number of CAD apps) but luckily they don't depend on glDrawPixels with
some strange application of texture or fog.
I understand that this corner of mesa isn't considered high priority, as
everyone has rightfully pointed out, as no one would really be interested in
using this work. As such, I won't bother trying to improve this corner case
further then necessary.
That being said, if I can finish this up without causing large changes in the
code, could I get this committed? If nothing else, I've used this to learn
more about mesa (and it has been quite educational for me, since I haven't
looked at mesa's internals before now) and it would be nice to close this
issue. I almost have a complete solution ready to go (thanks for the pointers
on the raster position, that was the last needed piece!), and I think I can
get the initial version posted from here without help.
Moving forward, I'd like to work on making piglit pass on my hardware
(basically r600/radeonsi right now) for the non-skipped tests. Would that be
ok to push forward within mesa, even it touches similar obscure "features"?
Or would it be preferred to simply remove those tests from piglit, since the
features under test are not wanted?
If you really want to work on it, that's fine. We all have to start
somewhere!
-Brian
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
