On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 08:43 -0700, Brian Paul wrote: > This all sounds pretty good to me, Ian. Though, I share Roland's > concern about vertex program. Perhaps we could make that change > temporarily and see what issues pop up. > > BTW, I was thinking of yanking out some older extensions such as > SGIX_shadow, SGIX_shadow_ambient, SGIX_depth texture which are > superceded by ARB extensions. Sound good?
I'm usually reluctant to remove support for extensions, even old ones. GL_SGIX_shadow_ambient and GL_SGIX_depth_texture share all of their implementation with the ARB versions. All we'd gain by removing those extensions is two less lines in extensions.c. :) GL_SGIX_shadow has more differences w.r.t. GL_ARB_shadow. Most of the clean-up looks like it would be in texparam.c. It looks like all of the GL_SGIX_shadow "state" gets converted to GL_ARB_shadow state in texparam.c, so none of the drivers have to care about GL_SGIX_shadow. Is that right? If it doesn't hurt much, I'd rather keep them, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to raise a huge stink.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________ Mesa3d-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mesa3d-dev
