Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD RadeonSI Gallium3D Is Now Incredibly Close To OpenGL 4.3!

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by Creak View Post
    Congratulations AMD devs! We can clearly see here the realization of all the previous months of efforts.
    And now, radeonsi is now the only driver implementation officially compatible with OpenGL 4.2!

    It's nice to see all the green cells in https://mesamatrix.net
    Well there are OpenGL4.2 patches for nouveau on the list for GK104 so i guess we will see 4.2 for nouveau soon.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by Veerappan View Post

      If you're talking about the shader buffer load/store intrinsics, those just landed today:
      (svn id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@266126
      , git: 756309c45b935a28a3bdd2ddbdebcfb27b4a1a82)
      Well, the message https://lists.freedesktop.org/archiv...il/111638.html said
      It depends on two patches for LLVM that have not been committed yet:
      - D18340
      - D18559

      So, a google search:
      http://reviews.llvm.org/D18340 - "This revision is now accepted and ready to land."
      http://reviews.llvm.org/D18559 - "Closed by commit rL265589: AMDGPU: Add a shader calling convention (authored by nha)"

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
        I'm not sure how much work is left on ES 3.1 compatibility extension for 4.5. It seems like Intel has shifted some resources away from ES support and towards Vulkan, so it may not be finished up by this summer.
        i'm pretty sure it is trivial and intel have not done it because intel only needs gles for android and android has no gl4.5

        Comment


        • #24
          This is great to see!

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by pal666 View Post
            i'm pretty sure it is trivial and intel have not done it because intel only needs gles for android and android has no gl4.5
            The bits that are left are not trivial, per Illia who has been filling in a lot of the more trivial parts.

            Originally posted by illiamirkin
            That streak is mostly over... I did the easy ones The only other "easy" one left is GL_OES_texture_view (and its EXT companion), but there are no dEQP tests for it. If one were to not be lazy, then one would modify the existing piglit tests to work with GL ES as well, and test the impl that way. The rest of the stuff required for AEP and GLES 3.2 is trickier - geometry/tess depend on GL_OES_shader_io_blocks, which in turn depends on making the input/output interface validation logic work for SSO programs. [Right now it just crashes on gallium since we release the IR, but even if we don't, it's till piles-o-fail.] I've been giving advanced blend some thought, but it's not trivially simple, and then there's the primitive bounding box thing which depends on tess, and cube arrays which depend on gs. And that's it. Maybe fixing GL_EXT/OES_shader_io_blocks *would* be a good newbie project, esp for someone already familiar with GL. There are dEQP tests for it, which is nice, and this is a start on the mesa bits: https://github.com/imirkin/mesa/comm...bb9b1c354690ae If you do go for it, make sure to consult with people about how to solve the issues once you identify them, since everyone will have (opposing) opinions on it. [Esp the whole reliance on the ir being around after linking -- that needs to go.]
            Although i guess he said that was for GLES3.2 - not sure which bits are required for the GL4.5 extension and which ones aren't.
            Last edited by smitty3268; 13 April 2016, 02:02 PM.

            Comment


            • #26
              How come I only have OpenGL 3 on Arch and AMD R9 270X? I'm using Mesa 11.2 and "radeon" as my driver.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Amarildo View Post
                How come I only have OpenGL 3 on Arch and AMD R9 270X? I'm using Mesa 11.2 and "radeon" as my driver.
                Are you sure you checked the core profiile version and not just compatibility profile version?

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by Tomin View Post

                  Are you sure you checked the core profiile version and not just compatibility profile version?
                  It seems I have 4.1, but why "OpenGL version string" says 3.0?

                  Code:
                  [amarildo@amarildo ~]$ glxinfo | grep OpenGL
                  OpenGL vendor string: X.Org
                  OpenGL renderer string: Gallium 0.4 on AMD PITCAIRN (DRM 2.43.0, LLVM 3.7.1)
                  OpenGL core profile version string: 4.1 (Core Profile) Mesa 11.2.0
                  OpenGL core profile shading language version string: 4.10
                  OpenGL core profile context flags: (none)
                  OpenGL core profile profile mask: core profile
                  OpenGL core profile extensions:
                  OpenGL version string: 3.0 Mesa 11.2.0
                  OpenGL shading language version string: 1.30
                  OpenGL context flags: (none)
                  OpenGL extensions:
                  OpenGL ES profile version string: OpenGL ES 3.0 Mesa 11.2.0
                  OpenGL ES profile shading language version string: OpenGL ES GLSL ES 3.00
                  OpenGL ES profile extensions:

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                    Although i guess he said that was for GLES3.2 - not sure which bits are required for the GL4.5 extension and which ones aren't.
                    gl4.5 predates gles3.2, so it couldn't require it.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                      gl4.5 predates gles3.2, so it couldn't require it.
                      It doesn't require all of it, but parts of gles3.2 are in the GL 4.5-based 3_1_compat extension. Even though it's named 3.1 and not 3.2.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X