> ^
> It seems like this should be < 30. That will allow the check to keep
> working if glamor ever grows support for OpenGL 2.0 (however unlikely
> that may be).
>
> Do we know which GPUs cannot meet this limit and also do not have "true"
> integer support? I wonder if
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 01/28/2015 01:00 PM, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
>> On 28/01/15 21:17, Ian Romanick wrote:
>>>
>>> Do we know which GPUs cannot meet this limit and also do not have "true"
>>> integer support? I wonder if we should go ahead and do the
>>> GL_ME
On 01/28/2015 01:00 PM, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
> On 28/01/15 21:17, Ian Romanick wrote:
>>
>> Do we know which GPUs cannot meet this limit and also do not have "true"
>> integer support? I wonder if we should go ahead and do the
>> GL_MESA_shading_language_130 or GL_MESA_gpu_shader_int32 extension
On 28/01/15 21:17, Ian Romanick wrote:
Do we know which GPUs cannot meet this limit and also do not have "true"
integer support? I wonder if we should go ahead and do the
GL_MESA_shading_language_130 or GL_MESA_gpu_shader_int32 extensions that
we had previously discussed, and remove support for
On 01/28/2015 07:17 AM, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
> When using glamor (either in Xephyr or Xwayland) on hardware with too
> low instructions limit, glamor fallbacks to sw due to large shaders.
>
> This makes glamor unbearably slow on such hardware.
>
> Check reported value for GL_MAX_PROGRAM_NATIVE_
When using glamor (either in Xephyr or Xwayland) on hardware with too
low instructions limit, glamor fallbacks to sw due to large shaders.
This makes glamor unbearably slow on such hardware.
Check reported value for GL_MAX_PROGRAM_NATIVE_ALU_INSTRUCTIONS_ARB
and fail in glamor_init() if the limit
