Stephen J Baker wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Brian Paul wrote:
>
> > > > We *MUST* come up with
> > > > a final decision - and it needs to be before Mesa 3.1 hits the
> > > > streets.
> > >
> > > Rather than being gated by the release schedule of some particular
> > > implementation, I want to make this into an ARB extension. This means
> > > (a) the extension specification must be complete by November 8th and (b)
> > > it will not be finalized until the ARB gets to vote on it December 7-8.
> >
> > Since I want to finish/release Mesa 3.1 pretty soon, I think I'll be
> > omitting support for GetProcAddress() in 3.1. I plan on a more frequent
> > release cycle in the future so hopefully this'll be settled in time
> > for the next release.
>
> That would be a shame IMHO.
>
> The present Mesa doesn't have mixed contexts does it? Hence the
> outcome of this debate on context dependent/independent addresses
> is moot for Mesa 3.1.
>
> Since (IIRC) you said that you already have a glGetProcAddress
> of some kind, I'd suggest you call it both glx and glGetProcAddress
> and ship it with 3.1.
I'd have to call them glXGetProcAddressMESA() and glGetProcAddressMESA()
since the EXT requires some concensus among vendors and the ARB suffix
requires ARB approval.
I don't want to introduce something that's going to cause a problem
in the near future.
-Brian
