[cl-opengl-devel] OpenGL 3.3/4.0 bindings
I've updated the low level bindings (%gl package) in my cl-opengl fork at http://github.com/3b/cl-opengl to version 60 of the .spec files, including gl 3.3 and gl 4.0. Only minimally tested, but shouldn't have any effect on existing code aside from a few extension functions whose names changed (named-make-buffer-resident-nv and named-make-buffer-non-resident-nv are make-named-* now), an OpenGLES-only enum name change (:writeonly-rendering-amd to :writeonly-rendering-qcom), and the disappearance of framebuffer-texture-face, but that doesn't seem to be in the specification either. see http://github.com/3b/cl-opengl/issues for a list of known issues, feel free to add more if you run into any problems with it. -- b
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Bart Botta <00003b@gmail.com> wrote:
I've updated the low level bindings (%gl package) in my cl-opengl fork
Any reason why we shouldn't make this the official branch and adjust the webpage links? (And should we point to the issue tracker as well?) -- Luís Oliveira http://r42.eu/~luis/
Luís Oliveira <luismbo@gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Bart Botta <00003b@gmail.com> wrote:
I've updated the low level bindings (%gl package) in my cl-opengl fork
Any reason why we shouldn't make this the official branch and adjust the webpage links? (And should we point to the issue tracker as well?)
Not that I have any say in this, but I would welcome it. I am using the fork since quite some time without issues. Ole -- Ole Arndt http://www.sugarshark.com
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Luís Oliveira <luismbo@gmail.com> wrote:
Any reason why we shouldn't make this the official branch and adjust the webpage links? (And should we point to the issue tracker as well?)
OK with me, though if people actually started using the issue tracker very much, I'd probably want to move it somewhere better. I think the only major regression from the darcs tree is that the auto error checking breaks rather badly when used with multiple contexts, but at least that isn't too hard to disable, and seems useful otherwise. -- b
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Bart Botta <00003b@gmail.com> wrote:
OK with me, though if people actually started using the issue tracker very much, I'd probably want to move it somewhere better.
Done. <http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-opengl/> now points to a bunch of github locations which makes your tree the official one, I suppose. You should get a c-l.net account. :-) -- Luís Oliveira http://r42.eu/~luis/
participants (3)
-
Bart Botta -
Luís Oliveira -
Ole Arndt