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

  • #2
    I bet someone doesn't want to advertise 4.5 yet because nobody wants to freeze Mesa on lucky number 13 for the next who knows how long. If you do 4.4 now and 4.5 in 3 months, you can get to call it Mesa 14 for the next several years!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by zanny View Post
      lucky number 13
      Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition and confront it with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by zanny View Post
        I bet someone doesn't want to advertise 4.5 yet because nobody wants to freeze Mesa on lucky number 13 for the next who knows how long. If you do 4.4 now and 4.5 in 3 months, you can get to call it Mesa 14 for the next several years!
        I'm pretty sure that next version of Mesa will be 17.x after the one that's pending.

        Comment


        • #5
          Awesome to see that mesa has functionally caught up with GL versions. There's still additional extensions to implement for non-version-specific features, but that will probably be the case for a while yet.

          Now that Mesa has basically caught up on GL versions, I'm looking forward to a good period of continued performance optimization and correctness fixes.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post
            What is fully accepted as genuine religious statement may be seen as poor superstition by those who do not share the same faith. Since there are no generally agreed proper or accepted religious standards among people of different cultural backgrounds, the very notion of what is a superstitious behavior is relative to local culture.
            So... Mesa 14 then ?

            Comment


            • #7
              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

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post
                Sciences are based on assumptions anyway, so they don't yield truths in the sense of absolute truths. Physics, for example, has traditionally assumed –among other things– that there is a single reality (i.e. objectivity) composed of individual substances (used to be the atoms; then came subatomic particles, the quarks and, since relativity, things have got more complicated) and that these substances interact (i.e. causality). Thus, the ‘truths’ of sciences are as valid as the result of assuming, for example, that there's an almighty deity and that such great will will reward or punish one according to how one behaves (this is roughly destiny, and it appears in many ancient cultures) or upon doing some things (what's now called ‘superstition’, like fearing walking under a ladder will bring one bad luck). What happens is that this irritating liberal tradition which everyone in the Anglosphere buys into made a distinction between science and superstition on false grounds and glorified the thus wrongly-distinguised sciences. The only difference between science's basic assumptions and any other assumptions one could make is really that they seem more reasonable to the majority nowadays. The difference doesn't lay in their nature, but in how they are perceived. And since when is a sensation of the majority a proper ground or method for us to reach knowledge? Certainly not until recently, with the rather irritating English philosophy. They even have tricks to turn their axioms («axiom» is another word for «assumption» they use to hide the fact they make assumptions and the astonishing quantity of them) and openly-recognized assumptions (like the principle of non-contradiction) into objective or cuasi-objective principles, like the old psychologism or the "you are discussing, therefore you abide by these assumptions" bullshit, related to the inter-subjectivity concept, which is yet another theoretical trick to save the annoying legacy of modern phylosophy. Long story short: sciences are overrated.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kalrish View Post

                  Sciences are based on assumptions anyway, so they don't yield truths in the sense of absolute truths. Physics, for example, has traditionally assumed –among other things– that there is a single reality (i.e. objectivity) composed of individual substances (used to be the atoms; then came subatomic particles, the quarks and, since relativity, things have got more complicated) and that these substances interact (i.e. causality). Thus, the ‘truths’ of sciences are as valid as the result of assuming, for example, that there's an almighty deity and that such great will will reward or punish one according to how one behaves (this is roughly destiny, and it appears in many ancient cultures) or upon doing some things (what's now called ‘superstition’, like fearing walking under a ladder will bring one bad luck). What happens is that this irritating liberal tradition which everyone in the Anglosphere buys into made a distinction between science and superstition on false grounds and glorified the thus wrongly-distinguised sciences. The only difference between science's basic assumptions and any other assumptions one could make is really that they seem more reasonable to the majority nowadays. The difference doesn't lay in their nature, but in how they are perceived. And since when is a sensation of the majority a proper ground or method for us to reach knowledge? Certainly not until recently, with the rather irritating English philosophy. They even have tricks to turn their axioms («axiom» is another word for «assumption» they use to hide the fact they make assumptions and the astonishing quantity of them) and openly-recognized assumptions (like the principle of non-contradiction) into objective or cuasi-objective principles, like the old psychologism or the "you are discussing, therefore you abide by these assumptions" bullshit, related to the inter-subjectivity concept, which is yet another theoretical trick to save the annoying legacy of modern phylosophy. Long story short: sciences are overrated.
                  Dude, Science is just another tool in life. However it's used it's on the people's action, not the tool itself.

                  It's like saying it's the hammers fault for being a weapon because it's deadly if you hit someone with it real hard.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Nice to see radeonsi and nouveau hiting opengl 4.5 but sadly there's no love for r600

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X