Intel Continues Prepping Their Vulkan Driver For Mainline Mesa

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Intel Continues Prepping Their Vulkan Driver For Mainline Mesa

For those that missed the notice, Intel's Vulkan driver will soon be merging into mainline Mesa...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Intel-Vulkan-Closer-To-Main

[FireBurn]

When I tried building this a few weeks ago I had issues between regular mesa wanting python2 and vulkan's XML files wanting python3

Not sure if it's been sorted yet or not or if anyone else has had that issue

[LinAGKar]

Mesa is already on openGL 4.3

[geearf]

Mesa is already on openGL 4.3

Only core, no driver is (yet).

[haagch]

Well, radeonsi could be, but https://lists.freedesktop.org/archiv...il/113022.html

[GreatEmerald]

I don't see why Mesa core versioning should care about the GL versions of drivers, rather than, you know, the Mesa core. But apparently it does? I don't really see the logic in that...

Well, radeonsi could be, but https://lists.freedesktop.org/archiv...il/113022.html

Hm, is there anyone looking into this? Is it a Mesa, OpenCL, or UE4 issue?

[LinAGKar]

Only core, no driver is (yet).

Michael specifically states core Mesa though, as if it's still on 4.2. And up until recently no driver supported openGL 4.2, yet Mesa was said to support it. It looks like Michael hasn't noticed the openGL 4.3 support yet.

Wikipedia seems to think the next version will be 12, though I can't find a source.

[bridgman]

I don't see why Mesa core versioning should care about the GL versions of drivers, rather than, you know, the Mesa core. But apparently it does? I don't really see the logic in that...

It's just the accepted convention - every project needs some kind of rule for when to bump the major version number, and for Mesa it's traditionally been tied to non-trivial bumps in GL support level.

Mesa major version numbers could be tied to something like Brian Paul's birthday but that's not the current approach.

[GreatEmerald]

It's just the accepted convention - every project needs some kind of rule for when to bump the major version number, and for Mesa it's traditionally been tied to non-trivial bumps in GL support level.

Mesa major version numbers could be tied to something like Brian Paul's birthday but that's not the current approach.

It's not the whole idea I'm confused about (Mesa is an OpenGL implementation, so it's obvious to make bumps at each GL support level), it's that it's apparently only bumped if there's a *driver* implementing the level, as opposed to the *core* Mesa supporting the level? Which I find weird, because why would you care about what individual drivers implement?

[bridgman]

Just my guess, but if core plus a software renderer supported the GL level that would be considered sufficient, but if none of the software renderers are ready either then there is no way to render anything at that GL level.

My recollection was that Mesa had a software renderer which was neither softpipe nor llvmpipe, but I don't think it's being tracked on mesamatrix. If "core Mesa" includes that software renderer, ie if you can render something at GL 4.3 with Mesa as it is today, then I probably would agree that the version number should be bumped.