Brett Johnson wrote:
>
> Brian Paul wrote:
> >
> > I believe the only outstanding issue is whether glGetProcAddressEXT
> > is indeed the right function name. The alternative is to use
> > glXGetProcAddressEXT to return pointers to core GL functions in
> > addition to GLX functions.
> >
> > I'm in favor of the former (having glGetProcAddressEXT).
>
> Could you give some rationale for why you favor this Brian?
My reason, as of a few weeks ago, was that for the application
programmer,
it's one less platform-specific thing to deal with. That is, you
could avoid this sort of thing:
#if defined(WINDOWS)
ptr = wglGetProcAddress(xxx);
#else if defined(X11)
ptr = glXGetProcAddress(xxx);
#else if defined(MACINTOSH)
ptr = aglGetProcAddress(xxx);
#else if defined(BEOS)
ptr = beosGetProcAddress(xxx);
etc...
#endif
On the other hand, I can see the rational for having glXGetProcAddress()
only:
- it's in the same spirit as wglGetProcAddress
- there has to be a glXGetProcAddress anyway
- the context-independent nature of GetProcAddress jives with the GLX
interface
- it's not likely that Microsoft will implement glGetProcAddress anytime
soon
- GLUT could offer a neutral wrapper for wgl/glx/aglGetProcAddress
Hmmm, I may be talking myself out of glGetProcAddress!
At this point I'm getting anxious to release Mesa 3.1-final but we need
to
settle this subject first. I certainly don't want to make a final
decision
on this myself. I value everyone else's opinion. If anyone else has
pros/
cons to add to the above list, lets have them. Maybe concisely
enumerating
the issues will clear things up.
-Brian
