On 09/02/2011 06:37 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> This series gets gen4 to be non-regressing for the new vertex shader.
> I'd be fine with not pushing the last patch and letting Paul's patches
> land, then fixing the bug as it remains there. Once these two land, I
> think it's time to turn on the new b
On 5 September 2011 14:25, Eric Anholt wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 21:21:10 -0700, Paul Berry
> wrote:
> Non-text part: multipart/alternative
> > On 2 September 2011 18:37, Eric Anholt wrote:
> >
> > > This series gets gen4 to be non-regressing for the new vertex shader.
> > > I'd be fine with
On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 21:21:10 -0700, Paul Berry wrote:
Non-text part: multipart/alternative
> On 2 September 2011 18:37, Eric Anholt wrote:
>
> > This series gets gen4 to be non-regressing for the new vertex shader.
> > I'd be fine with not pushing the last patch and letting Paul's patches
> > lan
On 2 September 2011 21:21, Paul Berry wrote:
> On 2 September 2011 18:37, Eric Anholt wrote:
>
>> This series gets gen4 to be non-regressing for the new vertex shader.
>> I'd be fine with not pushing the last patch and letting Paul's patches
>> land, then fixing the bug as it remains there. Onc
On 2 September 2011 18:37, Eric Anholt wrote:
> This series gets gen4 to be non-regressing for the new vertex shader.
> I'd be fine with not pushing the last patch and letting Paul's patches
> land, then fixing the bug as it remains there. Once these two land, I
> think it's time to turn on the
This series gets gen4 to be non-regressing for the new vertex shader.
I'd be fine with not pushing the last patch and letting Paul's patches
land, then fixing the bug as it remains there. Once these two land, I
think it's time to turn on the new backend by default.
___
