On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:18:50AM -0700, Stéphane Marchesin wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Brian Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > > It seems unusual for a new extension to be defined in its own header file > rather than the eglext.h file. > > Is there a particular reason for that? Are there other vendors putting > their extensions in new header files like this?
> The reason we did that for Chrome is that it makes updating the khronos > headers > easier (no need to untangle private vs khronos extensions, just copy the new > khronos headers over). Brian, Mesa is one vendor that already does that. Mesa places unregistered EGL_MESA extensions into eglmesaext.h for the same reason that Chromium places theirs into eglextchromium.h: to make it easier to update eglext.h from Khronos subversion. EGL_CHROMIUM_sync_control is not yet in the Khronos registry. So, to follow precedent, Mesa should place it in eglmesaext.h or import the eglextchromium.h. Unless someone has a strong preference, I will import eglextchromium.h. If someone later objects, then we can simply fold eglextchromium.h into eglmesaext.h. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
