Ian Romanick wrote: > 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 superceded by ARB extensions.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?
Yes, go for it. -Brian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
