Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

13 Patches Published That Effectively Bring RadeonSI To OpenGL 4.5

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

  • 13 Patches Published That Effectively Bring RadeonSI To OpenGL 4.5

    Phoronix: 13 Patches Published That Effectively Bring RadeonSI To OpenGL 4.5

    Back on Wednesday I wrote about how RadeonSI and Nouveau NVC0 completed their OpenGL 4.5 extension changes but were still being held up from exposing OpenGL 4.4 due to the incomplete ARB_enhanced_layouts extension. Well, that is about to change with 13 patches published today that effectively finish it up...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...ish-ST-Mesa-45

  • kalrish
    replied
    Most here won't recognise an idea unless it is backed by an authority, that is, one of the local gods (i.e. a developer) or a scientist (preferably American). Since there's already Edward for the former, let the later be represented by the chapter Why Science (Natural Philosophy) is Bullshit and the book Axioms it is part of, written by Robert G. Brown, an American physicist and programmer at Duke University. Lest such authorities as a Mesa developer and an American physicist be doubted, you'll swallow your arrogance and recognise I was right, won't you?

    And let's not rant about how discussions are driven by authority instead of truth and so are a socratic myth and, most of the times, a way of losing one's time and getting pointlessly irritated, nor about freedom of expression, which lets morons spread bullshit and thus thwarts freedom of truth.

    Leave a comment:


  • trek
    replied
    Originally posted by DrYak View Post
    Well at least those "Reader's Digest" "Philosphy of science" trolls are a refreshing change from all the "BTRFS and SystemD are the Evulz !!!!" trolls as of late.
    Or all the Trump/Clinton astroturfing trolls that are currently polluting /.
    absolutely, I was probably too tired to search something about the topic, sorry

    Originally posted by funfunctor View Post
    btw, I would not go as far as to say these posts are trolling, I myself am a mesa developer and I only signed up to this forum because of this topic of the deep philosophy of the domains of logic!
    sorry again, I should simply ignore what it is out of my scope, but in the future I would suggest to create a new topic on the "General Discussion" area to continue the discussion and simply post a link here

    my apologies!

    Leave a comment:


  • DrYak
    replied
    Well at least those "Reader's Digest" "Philosphy of science" trolls are a refreshing change from all the "BTRFS and SystemD are the Evulz !!!!" trolls as of late.
    Or all the Trump/Clinton astroturfing trolls that are currently polluting /.

    Leave a comment:


  • funfunctor
    replied
    Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post

    As my final statement in this discussion, I would like to note that, in mathematics and sciences, a useful result supports (verifies) an axiom and a non-useful result unsupports (disproves) an axiom. The process itself is very akin to back-propagation in artificial neural networks.
    Actually no, an axiom by its very definition can neither be proved nor disproved. An axiom is in fact an *assertion of truth*! That isn't as bad as it may sound though.

    This is actually a very interesting thing to think about carefully as it is the embodiment of "the problem" with modern mathematics and it has divided mathematics into two fundamentally apposed paradigms of thought. Mine is constructivism however I shall leave you to come up with your own thoughts and allow you to change them over time as your thinking evolves about the topic. A good place to start is perhaps the classic axiom of choice in set theory as an exemplification.

    btw, I would not go as far as to say these posts are trolling, I myself am a mesa developer and I only signed up to this forum because of this topic of the deep philosophy of the domains of logic!

    Leave a comment:


  • fuzz
    replied
    Originally posted by FireBurn View Post
    I've squashed these patches and one to enable OpenGL 4.5 on i965 on my mesa-9999 ebuild in the FireBurn overlay for those that want to test it on Gentoo
    Thanks man! I remember using your overlays for steam on Gentoo way back before we had ABI_X86 settings in portage. Hah, that was fun dealing with all those 32 bit libs!

    Leave a comment:


  • atomsymbol
    replied
    Originally posted by trek View Post
    <deleted vulgarism> philosophers, please go troll another forum!
    this thread was about radeonsi, so you can take all your superstition and science and put them up your...
    As my final statement in this discussion, I would like to note that, in mathematics and sciences, a useful result supports (verifies) an axiom and a non-useful result unsupports (disproves) an axiom. The process itself is very akin to back-propagation in artificial neural networks.

    Leave a comment:


  • LeJimster
    replied
    Originally posted by trek View Post
    fuckin philosophers, please go troll another forum!
    this thread was about radeonsi, so you can take all your superstition and science and put them up your...
    Lol, I don't mind philosophy or science. But your right.. I'm eagerly looking for peeps comments on the new mesa ogl 4.x work and had to skip through all that off topic bs.

    Anyway, getting back to these patches... Fantastic work. Things are really moving forward. I'm seriously considering going Vega 10 next year even tho Nvidia still have advantage in Linux games right now.
    ​​​​
    ​​​​

    Leave a comment:


  • trek
    replied
    fuckin philosophers, please go troll another forum!
    this thread was about radeonsi, so you can take all your superstition and science and put them up your...

    Leave a comment:


  • atomsymbol
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    Newton's gravity laws are still 100% valid even now, within the same constraints where his laws were deemed valid by experimentation. (i.e. these laws fail to give results consistent with real-life measurements when the objects go at relativistic speeds, that is with objects that run at like 20% or more of lightspeed). But as long as you deal with non-relativistic stuff, you can use Newton's laws without ill effects.
    • Some physical systems include bifurcation points. In such cases any kind of deviation, irrespective of how small the deviation is, can cause the system to behave differently. The objects do not need to be moving at more than 20% speed of light for Newtonian and relativistic mechanics to diverge significantly.
    • Some physical systems implement a Universal Turing Machine (UTM) with finite memory. If the UTM and the program running in the UTM are capable of measuring relativistic deviations resulting from sublight (less than 20% of lightspeed) speed differences then this difference can lead the machine (via a normal if-then-else statement known to every programmer) to two completely distinct states.

    The two above points are basically just different ways of how to understand/explain the single underlying phenomenon: That any small perturbation can lead the system to a completely different state. The perturbation must be measurable of course.

    If there's no way of measuring X then X doesn't exist.

    A measurement measures differences.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X