I don't think this is a big deal either way. My feeling was that since most or all drivers will have some use of the draw module, this wouldn't be any worse. But if there really are pre-geometry shader drivers that can avoid the draw module in all other situations, that's probably something we want to preserve. Corbin, do these drivers actually implement all of the GL stuff that the draw module provides fallbacks for? Or is there missing functionality that will eventually need help to implement?
Basically my desire is to avoid an explosion of capability bits and advertise just a small number of broad classes of hardware. Probably the way to answer the question of whether this should be a cap or not is to do the work of figuring out what these mythical harware classes are and whether that can be made to work. Keith ________________________________________ From: Corbin Simpson [mostawesomed...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 4:03 AM To: Keith Whitwell Cc: Zack Rusin; mesa3d-dev Subject: Re: [Mesa3d-dev] geometry shading patches I can't speak for Jakob or the Nouveau guys, but at least r300g is trying to keep Draw usage to a minimum. I know i915 has to use Draw, so that won't be a problem, but nv30 and nv40 are Draw-free IIRC. ~ C. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Mesa3d-dev mailing list Mesa3d-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mesa3d-dev
