On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 00:43:08 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov <s...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 23:05:46 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <k...@openjdk.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 23:05:44 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <k...@openjdk.org> wrote: >> >>> This PR updates the header files we use the build the OpenGL ES2 pipeline >>> to Mesa 19.2.1. See [this review >>> thread](https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2019-October/010372.html) >>> for the equivalent change that is under review for Java2D. >>> >>> The updates to the `gl.h` and `glx.h` files are large, since we are many, >>> many years behind. >>> >>> The `*ext.h` header files were updated fairly recently, so those diffs are >>> not large. >>> >>> Previously we used to get the `*ext.h` headers from Khronos, but now we get >>> all the headers from the Mesa project. >>> >>> This reduces the number of upstream sources we need to monitor. >>> >>> I note that with this update, the `glxext.h` and `wglext.h` files are >>> slightly older in the Mesa bundle than in Khronos, but the differences are >>> not relevant to FX. >>> >>> I did a full build and test on Mac and Linux and a sanity build (with >>> `-PINCLUDE_ES2=true`) on Windows. I also verified that the build artifacts >>> are unchanged. >>> >>> As with the Java2D change, the licensing terms are the same as before, but >>> since we no longer get files directly from Khronos, the `opengl_fx.md` file >>> is gone and the `mesa3d.md` is updated as required to mention these files. >>> >>> ---------------- >>> >>> Commits: >>> - 7a520adc: 8232210: Update Mesa 3-D Headers to version 19.2.1 >>> >>> Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/26/files >>> Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/jfx/26/webrev.00 >>> Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8232210 >>> Stats: 1515 lines in 8 files changed: 1076 ins; 269 del; 170 mod >>> Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/26.diff >>> Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx pull/26/head:pull/26 >> >> Reviewers: @prrace, @arapte, @johanvos > > Not sure but should not the license be GPL+CP in some of these files? > Not sure but should not the license be GPL+CP in some of these files? It is not necessary. PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/26
