Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mesa Gets Two New OpenGL 4.x Support Patch Series

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mesa Gets Two New OpenGL 4.x Support Patch Series

    Phoronix: Mesa Gets Two New OpenGL 4.x Support Patch Series

    With Mesa 10.0 that will be released in a few weeks time there is finally OpenGL 3.2 and 3.3 support. But with Mesa still being several years and revisions behind the latest Khronos Group specification, it's still a matter of implementing a lot of new GL4 functionality. Fortunately, there's many developers devoted to this task and on Tuesday there were patches for two new GL extensions...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTUwNTM

  • #2
    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Mesa Gets Two New OpenGL 4.x Support Patch Series

    With Mesa 10.0 that will be released in a few weeks time there is finally OpenGL 3.2 and 3.3 support. But with Mesa still being several years and revisions behind the latest Khronos Group specification, it's still a matter of implementing a lot of new GL4 functionality. Fortunately, there's many developers devoted to this task and on Tuesday there were patches for two new GL extensions...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTUwNTM
    If I'm not mistaken, both extensions are for GL 4.3, not 4.2.

    It's nice to see OpenGL 4 support improving. From 14 items needed for OpenGL 4.0, 8 are done, 2 were started, and 4 are still to tackle.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
      8 are done
      Probably the easier ones.
      ## VGA ##
      AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
      Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
        Probably the easier ones.
        Yeah, that's usually how things go. Still, with GL 3.3 finished (in terms of Mesa infrastructure), the more difficult things can be tackled with more firepower.

        I do believe that the road from GL 3.3 to GL 4.4 is considerably (i.e. many times) easier than the transition from GL 2.1 to GL 3.3.

        Comment


        • #5
          There is a third.

          Sceptic

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
            Yeah, that's usually how things go. Still, with GL 3.3 finished (in terms of Mesa infrastructure), the more difficult things can be tackled with more firepower.

            I do believe that the road from GL 3.3 to GL 4.4 is considerably (i.e. many times) easier than the transition from GL 2.1 to GL 3.3.
            Not really.

            Geometry shaders and tesselation shaders are hard parts.

            But Intel OpenSource Team got bigger , and AMD team got bigger, and Nouveau team have a little bit more docs, and there is more contrib from 3rd partys. More man power == faster peace of development.

            Comment


            • #7
              i would be happy to get opengl 3.2 with the current mesa 10 running on my haswell intel. somehow it is still showing opengl 3.0 with missing some improtant extentsions, like geometric shaders.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by a user View Post
                i would be happy to get opengl 3.2 with the current mesa 10 running on my haswell intel. somehow it is still showing opengl 3.0 with missing some improtant extentsions, like geometric shaders.
                Your glxinfo is too old and is only showing the compatibility profile. Newer glxinfo shows core profile as well.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                  Yeah, that's usually how things go. Still, with GL 3.3 finished (in terms of Mesa infrastructure), the more difficult things can be tackled with more firepower.

                  I do believe that the road from GL 3.3 to GL 4.4 is considerably (i.e. many times) easier than the transition from GL 2.1 to GL 3.3.
                  That's what I thaugth too. Seems to me that GL4.4 with be in Mesa sometime next year. However there's still the Nouveau/Radeon parts that need to be done. I'd gladdly help with Nouveau but I somewhat don't know where to start.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mattst88 View Post
                    Your glxinfo is too old and is only showing the compatibility profile. Newer glxinfo shows core profile as well.
                    interesting suggestion but this would not explain why the unigine demos all claim the very same OpenGL version and tell me missing geometric shaders:
                    Code:
                    Renderer: INTEL Unknown 256MB
                    OpenGL vendor:   Intel Open Source Technology Center
                    OpenGL renderer: Mesa DRI Intel(R) Haswell Desktop 
                    OpenGL version:  3.0 Mesa 10.0.0-devel (git-3785fe2 saucy-oibaf-ppa)
                    Found required GL_ARB_map_buffer_range
                    Found required GL_ARB_vertex_array_object
                    Found required GL_ARB_draw_instanced
                    Found required GL_ARB_draw_elements_base_vertex
                    Found required GL_ARB_transform_feedback
                    Found required GL_ARB_half_float_vertex
                    Found required GL_ARB_half_float_pixel
                    Found required GL_ARB_framebuffer_object
                    Found required GL_ARB_texture_multisample
                    Found required GL_ARB_uniform_buffer_object
                    
                    Unigine fatal error
                    GLRender::require_extension(): required extension GL_ARB_geometry_shader4 is not supported
                    Shutdown
                    AL lib: ReleaseALC: 1 device not closed

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by a user View Post
                      interesting suggestion but this would not explain why the unigine demos all claim the very same OpenGL version and tell me missing geometric shaders:
                      This sounds like you're using Mesa from recent git, but an X server that cannot load "megadrivers", so it loads swrast server side. This leaves you without GLX_ARB_create_context_profile and without that you can't create core (GL 3.1+) profiles.

                      Try updating your X server to the latest git, or just cherry-pick fd1b24a93e to your 1.14 X server.

                      (And also update glxinfo for good measure)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mattst88 View Post
                        This sounds like you're using Mesa from recent git, but an X server that cannot load "megadrivers", so it loads swrast server side. This leaves you without GLX_ARB_create_context_profile and without that you can't create core (GL 3.1+) profiles.

                        Try updating your X server to the latest git, or just cherry-pick fd1b24a93e to your 1.14 X server.

                        (And also update glxinfo for good measure)
                        thank you very much for your infos. i will check that out and report back if it helps.

                        anyhow, thank you for trying to help!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by a user View Post
                          interesting suggestion but this would not explain why the unigine demos all claim the very same OpenGL version and tell me missing geometric shaders:
                          Code:
                          Unigine fatal error
                          GLRender::require_extension(): required extension GL_ARB_geometry_shader4 is not supported
                          Mesa 10 supports GL3.2/GLSL 1.50 geometry shaders, not the GL_ARB_geometry_shader4 extension. There are some subtle differences.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Disregard that -- apparently unigine only looks for the extension when it can't make a core context.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by chrisf View Post
                              Disregard that -- apparently unigine only looks for the extension when it can't make a core context.
                              what does that mean?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X