Re: [oglbase-discuss] New GLX_ARB_get_proc_addressspecification

[Michael Vance]

On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 03:16:28PM -0700, Brett Johnson wrote:
>   - Much faster, simpler, and more efficient implementation (no more
> string searches).

Are you really going to be calling glXGetProcAddress() that often? I
call its corollary about six times in my application right now--two
times for CVA support, and four or so more for ARB multitexture
support. That's it.

>   - Much more robust interface from the app's point of view.  I.e. with the
>     current interface, it's pretty easy to get a pointer to an extension

Are you really going to somehow miss a spelling mistake of this type?
The only way I can see this be relevant is if glXGetProcAddress() is
guaranteed to return a non-NULL pointer. Then you're basically
executing NOP functions when you think you're calling actual state
changing code...

FWIW, I don't care if its context dependent or independent, and I
expect operation similar to dlopen() or wglGetProcAddress(), ie, it
returns NULL if the symbol is non-existent and accepts a string that
is the name of the extension function.

m.

-- 
Programmer                         "I wrote a song about dental floss,
Loki Entertainment Software         but did anyone's teeth get cleaner?"
http://lokigames.com/~briareos/              - Frank Zappa, re: the PMRC