Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mesa 10.5 Is Branched, Still Lacks OpenGL 4.0+ Support

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

  • Mesa 10.5 Is Branched, Still Lacks OpenGL 4.0+ Support

    Phoronix: Mesa 10.5 Is Branched, Still Lacks OpenGL 4.0+ Support

    Mesa Git master was branched into Mesa 10.5 this weekend and the latest Git code then bumped to Mesa 10.6-devel. While Mesa 10.5 is a step closer to being released, officially it still only supports OpenGL 3.3...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...ranched-OpenGL

  • #2
    I'm sure that 20 people are going to tell that my idea is dumb, but here it goes.

    Work to get Mesa support of OpenGL-Next should be done concurrent with OpenGL 4.0-4.5, instead of waiting for OpenGL 4.5 to be finished before moving to OpenGL-Next. That way linux is concurrent and on track with this standard instead of playing catch up, like our current situation. Even if this significantly slows OpenGL 4.0-4.5 work, due to limited developer time/resources.

    Choo choo, here comes the "you are dumb train".

    Comment


    • #3
      I agree that they should start working on glNext support as soon as possible. But I think there are no glNext specifications yet. Maybe at GDC something will be released.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Maxjen View Post
        I agree that they should start working on glNext support as soon as possible. But I think there are no glNext specifications yet. Maybe at GDC something will be released.
        http://hexus.net/tech/news/software/...-graphics-gdc/

        glNext will at least be talked about, but who knows if the spec will be released. We can hope That tease at the end about HL3, Portal3, L4D3 is just mean though.

        Comment


        • #5
          As far as I understand, gl-next is very similar to mantle, which is very similar to dx12. With AMD being so supportive of the OSS graphics stack, I really hope they do a lot to contribute. It would be good for their own drivers if they did. Even if the only thing they released was a mantle state tracker that would certainly help gl-next and dx12 state trackers.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Maxjen View Post
            I agree that they should start working on glNext support as soon as possible. But I think there are no glNext specifications yet. Maybe at GDC something will be released.
            Mesa has people on the Khronos board, so they should be fully aware of everything that is going on. They might just have to keep any code private until the official announcement is made.

            Comment


            • #7
              What I'm really concerned about is that Gallium3D's infrastructure is not up to speed on GL4+ features, meaning it won't be a "straightforward" writing of a new state tracker like it was the case with GalliumNine (note that I'm not saying Nine is simply by any means, but it had a huge advantage in that all of the required GL2 and GL3 level Gallium infrastructure was already in place).

              Comment


              • #8
                And this wasn't fixed: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86837

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yeah, Intel busy rewriting their compiler, no wonder nothing gets done.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by dh04000 View Post
                    I'm sure that 20 people are going to tell that my idea is dumb, but here it goes.

                    Work to get Mesa support of OpenGL-Next should be done concurrent with OpenGL 4.0-4.5, instead of waiting for OpenGL 4.5 to be finished before moving to OpenGL-Next. That way linux is concurrent and on track with this standard instead of playing catch up, like our current situation. Even if this significantly slows OpenGL 4.0-4.5 work, due to limited developer time/resources.

                    Choo choo, here comes the "you are dumb train".
                    I'd go even further, they should ignore 4.3 - 4.5 until GLnext is complete and should only be worked on if there is no newer 5.x spec, I say 4.3 through 4.5 because 4.0 through 4.2 is so close it will be all but done by the time GLnext is released. I mean 4.2 is "good enough" and since GLnext isn't evolutionary 4.3 - 4.5 shouldn't matter.
                    Last edited by chris200x9; 02-09-2015, 04:01 PM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X