On Tue 26 Apr 2016, Emil Velikov wrote:
> Humble ping ?

And an embarrasedly late reply...

This year, I've taken nearly 4 months off (paternity leave + vacation
+ sabbatical) and was in a Vulkan crunch for the 3 months before that.
My schedule has finally returned to normal.

> On 5 April 2016 at 22:58, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This is a re-spin of an ancient RFC [1] covering two (core) topics
> >  - Should waffle do fine grained checking of the context version prior
> > to feeding it to the driver ? Leaning towards no.

After considering this more, I agree with you. Waffle shouldn't add an
extra layer of validation on top of the GL/GLES/GLX/EGL drivers, except
when the validation is truly helpful.

> >  - Should we rely upon the library (libGL/libGLESv1/libGLESv2) presence
> > to determine if context of respective API is supported ? Same sentiment.

I agree. Strictly speaking, the presence of libGLFoo does not indicate
the availability of the GLFoo API.

However, patch 7 of your series regresses the gl_basic GLES1 tests. I'm
investigating that now. Maybe the bug is Waffle's, maybe Mesa's; I'm

> >
> > And last but not least I've thrown out a bunch of the
> > wcore_error_internal() in favour of assert. Core already handles all of
> > those 'default' cases, thus we can simplify things ;-)

Yes, it does make the code cleaner.

I've submitted the first 6 patches to Intel's CI. I'll merge if there
are no regressions.

I'm holding off on patches 7 and above until I diagnose the regressions.
waffle mailing list

Reply via email to