Re: [Mesa-dev] GL_DEPTH_BUFFER and GL_STENCIL_BUFFER
On 10/08/2011 05:55 AM, Jose Fonseca wrote: Just noticed that the latest glext.h doesn't define DEPTH_BUFFER/STENCIL_BUFFER anymore. This is what enum.spec says: # Due to a syncing problem between the ARB_framebuffer_object extension # specification and the core API specification during development, the # following tokens were present in the .spec file for some time. They are # not actually used anywhere in the OpenGL API or extensions and have been # withdrawn (use DEPTH or STENCIL respectively, instead, asattachment # parameters to GetFramebufferAttachmentParameteriv). #DEPTH_BUFFER= 0x8223 #STENCIL_BUFFER = 0x8224 But Mesa code actually seems to do the opposite, i.e., GetFramebufferAttachmentParameteriv handles DEPTH_BUFFER but not DEPTH. The GL specs is consistent with the comment. So I think it's better to remove this. Any objects? As Brian mentioned, that's my patch series: http://marc.info/?l=mesa3d-devm=131805740908194w=2 I'm planning to push both those patches today, so there's still time for review comments. :) ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] GL_DEPTH_BUFFER and GL_STENCIL_BUFFER
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Ian Romanick i...@freedesktop.org wrote: On 10/08/2011 05:55 AM, Jose Fonseca wrote: Just noticed that the latest glext.h doesn't define DEPTH_BUFFER/STENCIL_BUFFER anymore. This is what enum.spec says: # Due to a syncing problem between the ARB_framebuffer_object extension # specification and the core API specification during development, the # following tokens were present in the .spec file for some time. They are # not actually used anywhere in the OpenGL API or extensions and have been # withdrawn (use DEPTH or STENCIL respectively, instead, asattachment # parameters to GetFramebufferAttachmentParameteriv). # DEPTH_BUFFER = 0x8223 # STENCIL_BUFFER = 0x8224 But Mesa code actually seems to do the opposite, i.e., GetFramebufferAttachmentParameteriv handles DEPTH_BUFFER but not DEPTH. The GL specs is consistent with the comment. So I think it's better to remove this. Any objects? As Brian mentioned, that's my patch series: http://marc.info/?l=mesa3d-devm=131805740908194w=2 I'm planning to push both those patches today, so there's still time for review comments. :) http://marc.info/?l=mesa3d-devm=131805740908202w=2 -Brian ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] GL_DEPTH_BUFFER and GL_STENCIL_BUFFER
- Original Message - On 10/08/2011 05:55 AM, Jose Fonseca wrote: Just noticed that the latest glext.h doesn't define DEPTH_BUFFER/STENCIL_BUFFER anymore. This is what enum.spec says: # Due to a syncing problem between the ARB_framebuffer_object extension # specification and the core API specification during development, the # following tokens were present in the .spec file for some time. They are # not actually used anywhere in the OpenGL API or extensions and have been # withdrawn (use DEPTH or STENCIL respectively, instead, asattachment # parameters to GetFramebufferAttachmentParameteriv). #DEPTH_BUFFER= 0x8223 #STENCIL_BUFFER = 0x8224 But Mesa code actually seems to do the opposite, i.e., GetFramebufferAttachmentParameteriv handles DEPTH_BUFFER but not DEPTH. The GL specs is consistent with the comment. So I think it's better to remove this. Any objects? As Brian mentioned, that's my patch series: http://marc.info/?l=mesa3d-devm=131805740908194w=2 I'm planning to push both those patches today, so there's still time for review comments. :) Great. Looks good to me AFAICS. Jose ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
[Mesa-dev] GL_DEPTH_BUFFER and GL_STENCIL_BUFFER
Just noticed that the latest glext.h doesn't define DEPTH_BUFFER/STENCIL_BUFFER anymore. This is what enum.spec says: # Due to a syncing problem between the ARB_framebuffer_object extension # specification and the core API specification during development, the # following tokens were present in the .spec file for some time. They are # not actually used anywhere in the OpenGL API or extensions and have been # withdrawn (use DEPTH or STENCIL respectively, instead, as attachment # parameters to GetFramebufferAttachmentParameteriv). #DEPTH_BUFFER= 0x8223 #STENCIL_BUFFER = 0x8224 But Mesa code actually seems to do the opposite, i.e., GetFramebufferAttachmentParameteriv handles DEPTH_BUFFER but not DEPTH. The GL specs is consistent with the comment. So I think it's better to remove this. Any objects? Jose ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] GL_DEPTH_BUFFER and GL_STENCIL_BUFFER
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jose Fonseca jfons...@vmware.com wrote: Just noticed that the latest glext.h doesn't define DEPTH_BUFFER/STENCIL_BUFFER anymore. This is what enum.spec says: # Due to a syncing problem between the ARB_framebuffer_object extension # specification and the core API specification during development, the # following tokens were present in the .spec file for some time. They are # not actually used anywhere in the OpenGL API or extensions and have been # withdrawn (use DEPTH or STENCIL respectively, instead, as attachment # parameters to GetFramebufferAttachmentParameteriv). # DEPTH_BUFFER = 0x8223 # STENCIL_BUFFER = 0x8224 But Mesa code actually seems to do the opposite, i.e., GetFramebufferAttachmentParameteriv handles DEPTH_BUFFER but not DEPTH. The GL specs is consistent with the comment. So I think it's better to remove this. Any objects? Ian and I were talking off-list about this too (and he filed a spec bug w/ the ARB). I added those cases quite a while ago when the spec said x_BUFFER were the token names. Both Ian and I have patches to fix this. I thought Ian was going to post/commit his soon. Ian? -Brian ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
