Really, really great job!!!
Really, really great job!!!
I think there is just 2 extensions from OpenGL 4.1 that are actually limited to OpenGL 4 hardware:
GL_ARB_vertex_attrib_64bit and GL_ARB_viewport_array. I guess an OpenGL 3.4 specification would be nice even if we can still use the extension mechanism.
I had a lot of expectations with the separate shader but the extension feels quite limited in lot of senario so that we have to use a unified program. I still need to have a closer look.
DX10 has viewport and scissor arrays, so it should work on 3.x hw
The end of a sentence seems to be missing in glspec41.core.20100725.withchanges.pdf
2.11.3 Program Objects
If a program object that is active for any shader stage is re-linked successfully, the LinkProgram command will install the generated executable code as part of the current rendering state for all shader stages where the Additionally, the newly generated executable code is made part of the state of any program pipeline for all stages where the program is attached.
Some more not consistant stuff in the API:
Code :void ViewportArrayv(uint first, sizei count, const float * v); void ScissorArrayv(uint first, sizei count, const int * v); void DepthRangeArrayv(uint first, sizei count, const clampd * v);
I'm not sure what to thing about that as the token "array" has always referenced "array buffer" in the past.
Typo in glspec41.core.20100725.withchanges.pdf page 470
L.3.98 Shader Stencil Export
Sharder stencil export enables shaders to generate a stencil reference value, allowing
stencil testing to be performed against per-shader-invocation values.
Limited in what way? It even gives you a choice of rendezvous by resource or by name. I don't know how it could be more flexible. Encapsulating combinations in state objects only makes sense.I had a lot of expectations with the separate shader but the extension feels quite limited in lot of senario so that we have to use a unified program.
Nice additions and great work.
But, personally I was expecting two more things this time:
- shader includes in core
- direct state access
Is there a larger problem with the shader include extension? After it is an ARB extension I expected its inclusion into 4.1 core.
Anyway, great work.
As far as I know there's nothing wrong with GL_ARB_shading_language include. However, as far as I know it hasn't been shipped yet by any of the OpenGL vendors. Before sticking it into Core, it will be nice to get some experience with it first.
(with my ARB hat on)
Ok, that is reasonable.
I, in my impatient nature, always hope that core features get adapted by the vendors faster. There are plenty of good and old extensions some vendors still do not support. So with making something a core feature i thought/hoped they would be kind of forced to implement it (looking at ATi here, nvidia is usually very fast with implementing new extensions).
So that leaves me hoping that the vendors at least support new extensions faster.