These methods can be trivially supported in Mesa 7.6 without advertizing OpenGL 3.0. Nvidia and Ati binary drivers expose these methods even on 2.1 contexts - there's no reason why Mesa cannot do the same.
Edit: Digging around, I think this post is the root of the GL_VERSION issue. The first number in "1.4 (2.1 Mesa 7.0.1)" is the highest OpenGL version that can be officially supported under the current GLX implementation when using indirect rendering. Which means that I either hit a Mesa bug or was just plain lucky by only using supported methods.
Still, the whole confusion wouldn't even exist with glGetInteger(GL_[MAJOR|MINOR]).
Last edited by BlackStar; 09-04-2009 at 12:52 PM.
You do realize that when that is implemented, glGetInteger(GL_MAJOR|GL_MINOR) would return version 1.4 in the situation where the GL_VERSION string is "1.4 (2.1 ...)", right? You would get exactly what you get with atoi or GLEE-style parsing.Still, the whole confusion wouldn't even exist with glGetInteger(GL_[MAJOR|MINOR]).
So yeah, it might be a little more convenient for application developers, but it wouldn't actually change anything.
Hmm, as in with the principle GL_MINOR=1, GL_MINOR=2, GL_MAJOR|GL_MINOR=3, then pull first part for 1, second part for 2, full version with?
Last edited by nanonyme; 09-07-2009 at 12:56 PM.
I guess mostly what I had in mind was eg OpenGL version 1.5.x, glGetVersion(GL_MAJOR) returns 1, glGetVersion(GL_MINOR) returns 5.x, glGetVersion(GL_MAJOR|GL_MINOR) returns 1.5.x (as in, bitwise or on 01(bin) and 10(bin) => 11(bin))
ps. This is useless.