On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Thomas Helland <thomashellan...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2015-08-12 18:56 GMT+02:00 Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org>: >> On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 06:32:50 PM Thomas Helland wrote: >>> 2015-08-12 17:48 GMT+02:00 Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu>: >>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Thomas Helland >>> > <thomashellan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Helland <thomashellan...@gmail.com> >>> >> --- >>> >> This adds a section for the extensions nvidia has chosen to >>> >> call the "GL ARB 2015 Extensions" unveiled at SIGGRAPH. >>> > >>> > There are ARB extensions released every year (or more often, not >>> > sure)... we don't track all ARB extensions. Why are these so special >>> > vs e.g. the ones released along with GL 4.5 but that weren't included >>> > in the spec? Or any of the other ones... >>> > >>> >>> Well. They're not really special I guess. This just follows from the >>> discussion that went down on irc between me, glennk, fredrikh, ++. >>> >>> > Should GL3.txt just become extension-implementation-status.txt and >>> > list all non-vendor-specific extensions? So far it has stuck to actual >>> > GL versions (and more recently GLES). >>> > >>> >>> We can keep it GL / GLES versions only. Or we can extend it to a >>> extension-implementation-status.txt thing. Or we can split it >>> into two different files. I really don't care to much either way. >>> >>> If we end up adding these extensions to the file then a rename >>> and adding other ARB's is probably the way to go. There are >>> positive and negative sides to both approaches, and its not >>> my call to decide how, and if, we want this. It gives a nice overview >>> but at the same time it has PR- and "needs-to-be-kept-updated"- >>> implications that we may not want. I'm all ears for suggestions. >>> >>> -Thomas >> >> I like the idea of adding an "ARB Extensions" section and listing all >> the ARB extensions that aren't part of a particular GL version - simply >> in addition to the existing content, rather than reorganizing it. >> >> GL3.txt has been a misnomer for a while, but I don't care whether we >> rename it or not; it doesn't bother me. >> >> --Ken > > I've assembled a list of extensions I *think* are not demanded by > any current openGL specs, but I may have missed some. > (I find it weird that I VAO's in any of the specs, for example) > I could add all of them to a separate section to track them, > or I can leave it as is and drop this patch. Up to you guys. > > 2. GLX_ARB_get_proc_address > 4. WGL_ARB_buffer_region > 8. WGL_ARB_extensions_string > 9. WGL_ARB_pixel_format > 10. WGL_ARB_make_current_read > 11. WGL_ARB_pbuffer > 15. GL_ARB_vertex_blend > 16. GL_ARB_matrix_palette > 20. WGL_ARB_render_texture > 24. GL_ARB_shadow_ambient > 36. GL_ARB_fragment_program_shadow
All extensions above are considered old crap. Also, WGL extensions? Seriously? I personally think adding a list of non-core extensions to docs is useless and will only distract people. Marek _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev