On 10/10/2012 07:59 AM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
On 10/10/2012 07:42 AM, Jose Fonseca wrote:
I think certain versions of SPEC viewperf rely on NV_vertex_program.
See http://www.mesa3d.org/viewperf.html
We had some internal hacks to support just the bare minimum of to run
some of these tests, but they were not accepted on mesa proper. (There
is some bug report on fdo about it).
Jose
Ugh. I'd forgotten about SPECviewperf.
I guess this begs the question: do we care?
According to that page, viewperf11 is a buggy application (using
extensions without checking for them), and to get it working properly,
we'd need to implement two more legacy extensions that aren't necessary
for anything else. Or add the minimum required and driconf workarounds
to falsely advertise them.
In my experience, viewperf is extremely frustrating to work with and
isn't useful for testing either correctness nor performance. The only
reason anyone appears to care is that it's some kind of "industry
standard" benchmark. These days, however, it seems more people care
about glbenchmark.com's benchmarks, 3DMarkMobileES 2.0, and various
games. At least on my team, no one is measuring us against SPECviewperf.
Do people still care about viewperf on your side?
Oh, I also forgot to mention:
SPECviewperf 12 is supposed to come out later this year or early next.
I haven't seen it, but I would -hope- it isn't using old NV vertex
program extensions, and I imagine people will care more about 12 than 11.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
