Rietveld Code Review Tool
Help | Bug tracker | Discussion group | Source code | Sign in
(11)

Issue 1953047: Adding support for OES_standard_derivatives extension. This is not the comple... (Closed)

Can't Edit
Can't Publish+Mail
Start Review
Created:
15 years ago by Alok Priyadarshi
Modified:
14 years, 12 months ago
Reviewers:
kbr1, dgkoch
CC:
angleproject-review_googlegroups.com
Base URL:
http://angleproject.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Adding support for OES_standard_derivatives extension. This is not the complete implementation. Sending it to get feedback on the API. Is it OK to add extension support into TBuiltInResource? I could create a new struct for extensions but that would lead to API change. BUG=25

Patch Set 1 #

Total comments: 1

Patch Set 2 : '' #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+88 lines, -64 lines) Patch
M include/GLSLANG/ResourceLimits.h View 1 1 chunk +0 lines, -21 lines 0 comments Download
M include/GLSLANG/ShaderLang.h View 2 chunks +26 lines, -2 lines 0 comments Download
M samples/translator/translator.cpp View 2 chunks +14 lines, -10 lines 0 comments Download
M src/compiler/Initialize.h View 1 chunk +0 lines, -2 lines 0 comments Download
M src/compiler/Initialize.cpp View 2 chunks +9 lines, -9 lines 0 comments Download
M src/compiler/ShaderLang.cpp View 2 chunks +30 lines, -12 lines 0 comments Download
M src/libGLESv2/Shader.cpp View 1 chunk +9 lines, -8 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 15
Alok Priyadarshi
15 years ago (2010-08-23 20:09:54 UTC) #1
kbr1
Looks OK to me -- seems like a reasonable place to put this flag. Just ...
15 years ago (2010-08-23 20:22:38 UTC) #2
Alok Priyadarshi
Yes and yes.
15 years ago (2010-08-23 20:27:52 UTC) #3
kbr1
On 2010/08/23 20:27:52, alokp wrote: > Yes and yes. LGTM then.
15 years ago (2010-08-23 20:29:09 UTC) #4
Alok Priyadarshi
Daniel, Do you have any objections/suggestions?
15 years ago (2010-08-24 16:58:25 UTC) #5
dgkoch
It does seem a little weird to be enabling/disabling extensions via the resources structure instead ...
15 years ago (2010-08-24 19:54:00 UTC) #6
Alok Priyadarshi
On 2010/08/24 19:54:00, dgkoch wrote: > It does seem a little weird to be enabling/disabling ...
15 years ago (2010-08-24 20:34:37 UTC) #7
dgkoch
On 2010/08/24 20:34:37, alokp wrote: > On 2010/08/24 19:54:00, dgkoch wrote: > > It does ...
15 years ago (2010-08-24 21:26:09 UTC) #8
Alok Priyadarshi
> guess we can recommend zeroing out the entire structure first, and as long as ...
15 years ago (2010-08-24 21:32:13 UTC) #9
dgkoch
On 2010/08/24 21:32:13, alokp wrote: > > guess we can recommend zeroing out the entire ...
15 years ago (2010-08-24 21:35:43 UTC) #10
Alok Priyadarshi
Added ShInitBuiltInResource. Please review.
15 years ago (2010-08-24 22:16:26 UTC) #11
kbr1
On 2010/08/24 22:16:26, alokp wrote: > Added ShInitBuiltInResource. Please review. I really hope there is ...
15 years ago (2010-08-24 23:00:48 UTC) #12
Alok Priyadarshi
> I really hope there is no expectation that we will support binary upgrades of ...
15 years ago (2010-08-24 23:23:25 UTC) #13
dgkoch
On 2010/08/24 23:23:25, alokp wrote: > > I really hope there is no expectation that ...
15 years ago (2010-08-25 01:44:44 UTC) #14
Alok Priyadarshi
14 years, 12 months ago (2010-08-25 18:11:25 UTC) #15
There may be other ways to make this binary compatible such as making
TBuiltInResource opaque and having functions to set each resource or moving the
resource settings to compiler which already has an opaque handle.

But I do not want tackle this unless absolutely necessary
Sign in to reply to this message.

Powered by Google App Engine
RSS Feeds Recent Issues | This issue
This is Rietveld f62528b