Stephen J Baker wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, John M. Zulauf wrote:
>
> > > b) context-independent glXGetProcAddress
> >
> > Given that (d) is politically no viable right now this makes the most sense.
> > What's odd is that noone has talked about a basic implication of this
> > choice. Effectively getProc must **always** return a non-null wrapper (i.e.
> > the dispatch table function)... because we do not know if some FUTURE
> > context we create will support the ext. Right?
>
> No - surely the driver will know what set of extension symbols
> exists within it. It's not like the user can plug in a new graphics
> card on-the-fly in the middle of a program run.
I think John is correct. GetProcAddress must always return a non-null, unless
some sort of memory or resource problem makes it impossible to do so.
> If you ask for glBlarfEXT and neither of the drivers that are currently
> running are for a card with a functional Blarfatron, then you can expect
> a NULL.
Definately not.
> I'm presuming that the libGL knows what the full set of possible
> drivers are up-front without the need to actually open rendering
> contexts and such...maybe that's not the case?
No, libGL has no way of knowing about all the potential drivers that might
be loaded for any given visual, until a context is created that uses that
particular visual.
Cheers!
--
Brett Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Workstation Systems Lab
Hewlett-Packard Company
"Politicians, like diapers, should be changed regularly,
and for the same reason."
