On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 13:11 -0700, Brian Paul wrote: > Ian Romanick wrote: > > 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 superceded by ARB extensions.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. > > I've been doing some texture state changes/cleanups and it would be nice > to simplify the code (like you're doing) and get rid of old stuff that I > don't think anyone relies on. I'll probably do so unless someone > screams "no".
I looked at the GL_SGIX_shadow code a bit more closely, and it does use separate state from GL_ARB_shadow. Go ahead and chop it. Do the patches I sent out look good?
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
