Hi Dave, On 19 January 2016 at 09:02, Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Keith Packard <kei...@keithp.com> > > On desktop GL, Ask for a 3.3 core profile context if that's available, > otherwise create a generic context. > Regardless if 3.1 or other version is chosen, may I suggest that we keep the commit message/summary in line with the code.
> v2: tell glamor the profile is a core one. > v2.1: add/use GL version defines > v3: let glamor work out core itself > > Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <kei...@keithp.com> > Signed-off-by: Dave Airlie <airl...@redhat.com> > --- > hw/kdrive/ephyr/ephyr_glamor_glx.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/hw/kdrive/ephyr/ephyr_glamor_glx.c > b/hw/kdrive/ephyr/ephyr_glamor_glx.c > index 30c5245..b9fe8d1 100644 > --- a/hw/kdrive/ephyr/ephyr_glamor_glx.c > +++ b/hw/kdrive/ephyr/ephyr_glamor_glx.c > @@ -41,6 +41,10 @@ > #include "os.h" > #include <X11/Xproto.h> > > +/* until we need geometry shaders GL3.1 should suffice. */ > +/* Xephyr has it's own copy of this for build reasons */ Afaict there isn't any particular reason why that's the case, is it ? After all Xephyr does link in libglamor.la. Wouldn't it be better to include "glamor.h" here and migrate (at later stage) to using the glamor functions as opposed to ephyr_glamor_compile_glsl_prog, ephyr_glamor_build_glsl_prog plus others(?) ? -Emil _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
