Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Superposition Shows How Far RadeonSI Gallium3D Has Evolved vs. AMDGPU-PRO

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by bug77 View Post

    Wth does an application profile have to do with non-standard behaviour? App profiles are about knowing what an application does and letting the driver take a specific code path instead of a generic one. You know, the power devs have been asking in lower level APIs?

    It's basically the same as applying quick sort by default, but using bubble sort when you know some specific app uses mostly sorted collections.
    Because compatibility profiles are specified in 3.0 only. It was in the specs at 3.0, it was not in the specs at 4.0. Behaviour outside of specifications is non-standard. Relying on compatibility profiles and using specifications outside of OpenGL 3.0 is non-standard behaviour.

    EDIT: Actually, that's not right, I misunderstood. See here. https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...655#post945655
    Last edited by duby229; 04-12-2017, 07:41 PM.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by Dr. Righteous View Post
      I can never expect open source driver to preform as well as ones provided by the manufactures.
      most of open source drivers are provided by the manufactures

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by andre30correia View Post
        again?! why AMD continues with two official drivers? Why they don't simply give up from closed one? and put more ppl working with open ones?
        again?! why you continue spewing bullshit? why you don't simply listen to answers? and put more time educating yourself?

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by Dr. Righteous View Post
          I was never able to make it work correctly with the driver provided.
          card does not provide driver. your linux distro does, so switch distro if your is broken

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by duby229 View Post
            Why doesn't AMD instead decide to take the financial and human resources it wastes on proprietary drivers and use them to assist it's customers in modernizing their codebases to actually work with correct modern drivers? It seems like that -would- actually benefit linux and AMD and foremost their customers.
            why don't you enable your brain and understand that mesa does not work on windows?

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by duby229 View Post
              Then where's the open source code? I'll tell you, it's in radv right now, and no thanks to AMD at all.
              you are from fantasy world where mesa works on windows or amd does not have almost all customers on windows. in reality fixes from amd vulkan driver get into radv via radeonsi
              Last edited by pal666; 04-12-2017, 05:21 PM.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                you are from fantasy world where mesa works on windows or amd does not have almost all customers on windows. in reality fixes from amd vulkan driver get into radv via radeonsi
                And that's bad how exactly?

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by duby229 View Post

                  Because compatibility profiles are specified in 3.0 only. It was in the specs at 3.0, it was not in the specs at 4.0. Behaviour outside of specifications is non-standard. Relying on compatibility profiles and using specifications outside of OpenGL 3.0 is non-standard behaviour.
                  Not that anyone cares about facts, but that's just false.

                  Compatibility profiles are very much part of the spec for GL 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.0, ..., 4.5. For example:

                  https://khronos.org/registry/OpenGL/...patibility.pdf

                  There are some questionable and under-specified interactions between some of the legacy and "new" features [I'll leave that without further qualification as I'm not immediately familiar with the specifics], but that doesn't make the spec any less there. And no spec is ever fully complete.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by imirkin View Post

                    Not that anyone cares about facts, but that's just false.

                    Compatibility profiles are very much part of the spec for GL 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.0, ..., 4.5. For example:

                    https://khronos.org/registry/OpenGL/...patibility.pdf

                    There are some questionable and under-specified interactions between some of the legacy and "new" features [I'll leave that without further qualification as I'm not immediately familiar with the specifics], but that doesn't make the spec any less there. And no spec is ever fully complete.
                    Doesn't mean I'm wrong, it just means I misunderstood what I read.

                    Here's a quote from document.

                    D.1 Core and Compatibility Profiles

                    The

                    core profile

                    of OpenGL defines essential functionality for the modern pro-

                    grammable shading model introduced in OpenGL 2.0, but does not include features

                    marked as removed for that version of the Specification (see section D.2).

                    The

                    compatibility profile

                    does not remove any functionality.

                    It is not possible to implement both core and compatibility profiles in a single

                    GL context, since the core profile mandates functional restrictions not present in the

                    compatibility profile. Refer to the

                    WGL_ARB_create_context_profile

                    and

                    GLX_ARB_create_context_profile

                    extensions (see appendix I.3.3.66) for in-

                    formation on creating a context implementing a specific profile.

                    D.2 Deprecated and Removed Features

                    OpenGL 3.0 defined a set of

                    deprecated features

                    . OpenGL 3.1 removed most of the

                    deprecated features and moved them into the optional

                    GL_ARB_compatibility

                    extension. The OpenGL 3.2 core profile removes the same features as OpenGL

                    3.1, while the optional compatibility profile supports all those features.

                    Deprecated and removed features are summarized below in two groups: fea-

                    tures which are marked deprecated by the core profile, but have not yet been re-

                    moved, and features actually removed from the core profile of the current version

                    of OpenGL (no features have been removed from or deprecated in the compatibility

                    profile).

                    Functions which have been removed will generate an

                    INVALID_OPERATION

                    error if called in the core profile or in a forward-compatible context. Functions

                    which are partially removed (e.g. no longer accept some parameter values) will

                    generate the errors appropriate for any other unrecognized value of that parame-

                    ter when a removed parameter value is passed in the core profile or a forward-

                    compatible context. Functions which are deprecated but have not yet been removed

                    from the core profile continue to operate normally except in a forward-compatible

                    context, where they are also removed.
                    Sorry formatting sucks in the pdf.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      So basically, It's made specifically for allowing non-standard behaviour. I thought it wasn't part of the spec, for that I was wrong. And its damn unfortunate too. Khronos did apparently make it part of the spec. Dumbasses.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X