PDA

View Full Version : GLSL 1.30



PkK
08-11-2008, 10:40 PM
Most threads on what the ARB gave us are about GL3 and how we had expected more.

However, they released a new GLSL spec, too.

So I want to ask about that one: what do you think about the changes, what would you have wanted?

To me this new GLSL pec seems okay: GLSL evolves a bit in a natural way without becoming too bloated. It still seems to be an elegant language. To me it's the right level of abstraction.

Philipp

glPetr
08-12-2008, 06:20 AM
Hi,

I like new GLSL too - size queries for textures, rounding functions and "switch" statement seems like useful addition to me.

I am GLSL beginner, so cannot judge the other aditions.


Petr

Jan
08-12-2008, 06:37 AM
It has some nice improvements, after all the deprecated stuff has been removed.

Did anyone notice on the first page:

Copyright 2006-2008, Intel Corporation

What is that supposed to mean?
Jan.

dletozeun
08-12-2008, 07:31 AM
I don't understand why this thread is here, but anyway, what about array indexing... I have always been a bit confused about it, about what is actually allowed by glsl 1.20 and what is a tolerated on geforce 8 series; and now with this new glsl revision.

It should be me, but I did not find the spec very clear about it in 1.20 and not much better in 1.30.

Is there someone that could sum up all this stuff? It might help someone else than me.

Jedimaster
08-14-2008, 12:14 AM
It has some nice improvements, after all the deprecated stuff has been removed.

Did anyone notice on the first page:

Copyright 2006-2008, Intel Corporation

What is that supposed to mean?
Jan.

Maybe intel paid most of the money when they go on holiday.

Overmind
08-14-2008, 07:47 AM
The document I have seen (http://www.opengl.org/registry/doc/GLSLangSpec.Full.1.30.08.pdf) just contains a copyright by Khronos on the second page...

PkK
08-14-2008, 07:55 AM
The document I have seen (http://www.opengl.org/registry/doc/GLSLangSpec.Full.1.30.08.pdf) just contains a copyright by Khronos on the second page...

Strange, they gave us two specs: The one you looked at and one where the new additions were highlighted in magenta, The second one has the Intel copyright notice (the magenta GL3 spec doesn't).

Philipp

Groovounet
08-14-2008, 08:18 AM
This is something OpenGL ES does and I actually really it. A clean up one could be great to ... but for latter it seams to be. That's great when you already know previous specification. I hope it will remain the same for the future.

PkK
08-14-2008, 08:38 AM
This is something OpenGL ES does and I actually really it. A clean up one could be great to ... but for latter it seams to be. That's great when you already know previous specification. I hope it will remain the same for the future.
Well I like it, too, but it seems strange that they are not identical modulo the highlighting as one would suppose.
I would expect to be the "normal" spec identical to the highlighted one with magenta turned into black and canceled text removed.

Example: The intel copyright notice is in magenta in the hoghlighted spec, so I would expect it to appear in the normal spec in black at the same place. However it's absent from the normal spec.

Philipp

Overmind
08-14-2008, 10:37 AM
Perhaps Intel has the copyright for the highlighted spec. That is, the document, not the content. Finding and highlighting all differences is a lot of work, so it would make sense to copyright this ;)

dletozeun
08-14-2008, 10:48 AM
No, this just because Intel has a copyright on the magenta color.

Chris Lux
08-14-2008, 10:51 AM
No, this just because Intel has a copyright on the magenta color.
nope, that is the german telekom ;).

dletozeun
08-14-2008, 11:12 AM
omg! You're right, fortunately this only relates to telecommunications sector, not OpenGL :)

PkK
08-14-2008, 12:01 PM
Perhaps Intel has the copyright for the highlighted spec. That is, the document, not the content. Finding and highlighting all differences is a lot of work, so it would make sense to copyright this ;)

Finding and highlighting differences is not creative. Thus it is not copyrightable, just like making a copy of an existing work doesn't give the one making the copy a copyright on it.

dletozeun
08-14-2008, 12:15 PM
Well, I got it, this an error from spec writers... phew! I thought I could not sleep this night.