OpenGL 3.1 Not Likely In Mesa Until 2013

[89c51]

mesa desperately needs someone with deep pockets to back it up

[Nedanfor]

mesa desperately needs someone with deep pockets to back it up

Why? Do you really need OGL 4.2 now?

[89c51]

Why? Do you really need OGL 4.2 now?

probably not (though it'd be good to have) but i thing the FOSS stack needs Video Acceleration, OpenCL, bug fixing, and all the other things that are left behind due to lack of manpower.

[airlied]

I did a piglit run on fglrx the other day,

http://people.freedesktop.org/~airli...it/fglrx-r600/

so we can say we are a lot better in terms of actually passing tests :-)

That is a piglit run from two AMD drivers a year apart.

but really its only Intel working a lot on core mesa at the moment, with others expending time as jobs allow. Its not as is Red Hat can ship GL3.0 drivers anyways so working on them isn't a great spend of our time. and working on GL doesn't get you CL or video decode or anything. Also it not as if Red Hat can ship video decoders, so again no reason for us to invest heavily in them.

Perhaps some of the distros that do ignore patents could invest more in these.

[darkbasic]

Why? Do you really need OGL 4.2 now?

Why not? It would nice being able to play OilRush at the highest quality... but again performances are the main issue. Also we need at least 3.2 to get the best from wine.

[Nedanfor]

Why not? It would nice being able to play OilRush at the highest quality... but again performances are the main issue. Also we need at least 3.2 to get the best from wine.

Support in Mesa != Support in drivers. At the same time we need power management, performance, OCL, hw decoding, etc. etc. so I guess that only a little minority of us would really need OGL 4.x over all these feature.

PS. Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge only support OGL 3.x so I think that Intel isn't directly interested in supporting OGL 4.x.

[darkbasic]

Support in Mesa != Support in drivers.

Support in mesa means drivers will support it in ~6months.

At the same time we need power management

Done (Intel)

performance

WIP (Intel)

OCL

WIP

hw decoding

Done (Intel)

so I guess that only a little minority of us would really need OGL 4.x over all these feature.

But we need 3.2

PS. Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge only support OGL 3.x so I think that Intel isn't directly interested in supporting OGL 4.x.

They are already working on Haswell...

[Qaridarium]

Also we need at least 3.2 to get the best from wine.

openGL3+wine extensions also work..... because of this i play windows games in wine right now with very good performance.

the opensource drivers in fact do have the wine extensions from openGL3.2!

[Qaridarium]

Perhaps some of the distros that do ignore patents could invest more in these.

what kind of patents?

isn't the floating point graphics patent a problem for openGL 3.0 ?

[Qaridarium]

I did a piglit run on fglrx the other day,

http://people.freedesktop.org/~airli...it/fglrx-r600/

so we can say we are a lot better in terms of actually passing tests :-)

(edit) ubs,,, were is the comparison to the r600 driver?