Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: LLVMpipe Gallium3D Now Exposes GLSL 3.30

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,629

    Default LLVMpipe Gallium3D Now Exposes GLSL 3.30

    Phoronix: LLVMpipe Gallium3D Now Exposes GLSL 3.30

    The LLVMpipe driver that provides software-accelerated OpenGL support over Gallium3D now has GLSL 3.30 support where previously only version 1.40 of the GL Shading Language was exposed...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTY3MjM

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Meanwhile, Sandybridge is stuck at 1.40

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krejzi View Post
    Meanwhile, Sandybridge is stuck at 1.40
    Intel OTC devs said they won't implement anything newer than 3.1 for Sandy Bridge, but it's technically possible.

    Windows drivers for Sandy Bridge also only support OpenGL 3.1.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krejzi View Post
    Meanwhile, Sandybridge is stuck at 1.40
    Get coding. The driver is open source, documentation is available. Yeah, I know, graphics driver development is hard. But hey, I have Ironlake, that driver is even less complete than the Sandy Bridge one.

    @_SXX_: Do you have a link to where Intel devs said this? All I'm aware of is Paul Berry saying he probably won't work on geometry shaders for SB, but would be willing to help if someone else tackled it: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...er/046150.html

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    France
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Great but I'd be curious to know why the non-LLVM backend is still stuck with 1.5

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Porto
    Posts
    190

    Default yeah

    Quote Originally Posted by Krejzi View Post
    Meanwhile, Sandybridge is stuck at 1.40
    its stupid decision but ok, next time i will remember this type of decisions by intel devs

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gusar View Post
    Get coding. The driver is open source, documentation is available. Yeah, I know, graphics driver development is hard. But hey, I have Ironlake, that driver is even less complete than the Sandy Bridge one.
    Oh gosh, how can I thank you for your helpful suggestion? here's a tip for you:
    Get mining, get an Earth map and find gold, if you mine enough you'll find gold and become a billionaire. HTH

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    427

    Default

    At least you'd have some reasonable expectation of getting something useful if you wrote code, without worrying about getting taxed when you exchanged it for your currency of choice. And in this case you have prior art and experience that's willing to help, whereas if you went mining you likely wouldn't have the tools, experience, or knowledge to do the job, and nobody to help.

    You'd be better off mining for quartz anyway, imho.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    52

    Default

    OpenGL coding is a nightmare due to the vast diversity of availability of extensions, which is somewhat understandable, but it's hard to find a good technical explanation for why each version of GLSL breaks with previous versions. If you want to write a properly portable OpenGL application, you basically need to rewrite every shader in various versions of GLSL -- there's no difference in features, just in syntax. Sure, newer versions are nicer and cleaner, but the cost of this urge to streamline is huge headaches for us devs.

    OpenGL is the best option we have for crossplatform graphics development, but I can't say I love it.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gusar View Post
    @_SXX_: Do you have a link to where Intel devs said this? All I'm aware of is Paul Berry saying he probably won't work on geometry shaders for SB, but would be willing to help if someone else tackled it: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...er/046150.html
    I consider this statement as fact that Intel devs won't implement those on their own.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •