On Friday 25 December 2009 07:03:02 Corbin Simpson wrote:
> Isn't this incredibly at odds with our previous discussion, in which
> we generally agreed to not advertise support for unaccelerated things?

No, it's really not. We don't have caps for core features, e.g we don't have 
caps for vertex shaders and this goes hand in hand with that. Geometry shaders 
are optional in the pipeline meaning that unlike fragment shaders they can be 
absent in which case the pipeline behaves just like it would if the api didn't 
have geometry shaders exposed at all i.e. vertex shader outputs go directly do 
the fragment shader. So for games/apps that don't use geometry shaders this 
won't matter at all. And games/app that are so new that they actually check 
for geometry shaders will already be slow on i915 and r300 not because of 
geometry shaders, but because they're running on it on i915 or r300 =)

Not to mention that this is not a fringe feature that will be present only in 
super high-end and futuristic hardware.
All in all it's a bit like fixed-point hardware - programmable hardware is not 
a cap because it's what Gallium models. We can't just keep the Gallium 
interface at i915 level and mark everything above that as a cap, it'd be silly 
given that we're generations past that now.


This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community
Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support
A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy
Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers
Mesa3d-dev mailing list

Reply via email to