[Compile problem] GL_STENCIL_BACK_FAIL vs. GL_STENCIL_BACK_FAIL_ATI

[Uwe Bonnes]

Hallo,

compiling a recent CVS checkout, I go a failure with GL_STENCIL_BACK_FAIL
etc undefined. It seems that a patch from Vitaly regarding wined3d_gl.h from
yesterday evening as notor only partial applied.

Appended patch lets me circumvent that problem.

Bye
-- 
Uwe Bonnes                bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de

Institut fuer Kernphysik  Schlossgartenstrasse 9  64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. [phone] -------- Fax. [phone] ----------
Index: wine/dlls/wined3d/device.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/wine/wine/dlls/wined3d/device.c,v
retrieving revision 1.145
diff -u -r1.145 device.c
--- wine/dlls/wined3d/device.c	4 Mar 2006 17:10:57 -0000	1.145
+++ wine/dlls/wined3d/device.c	5 Mar 2006 14:47:13 -0000
@@ -3773,9 +3773,9 @@
 
         GLint action = StencilOp(Value);
 
-        glGetIntegerv(GL_STENCIL_BACK_FAIL, &stencilFail);
-        glGetIntegerv(GL_STENCIL_BACK_PASS_DEPTH_FAIL, &depthFail);
-        glGetIntegerv(GL_STENCIL_BACK_PASS_DEPTH_PASS, &stencilPass);
+        glGetIntegerv(GL_STENCIL_BACK_FAIL_ATI, &stencilFail);
+        glGetIntegerv(GL_STENCIL_BACK_PASS_DEPTH_FAIL_ATI, &depthFail);
+        glGetIntegerv(GL_STENCIL_BACK_PASS_DEPTH_PASS_ATI, &stencilPass);
 
         if(WINED3DRS_CCW_STENCILFAIL == State) {
             stencilFail = action;

[Compile problem] GL_STENCIL_BACK_FAIL vs. GL_STENCIL_BACK_FAIL_ATI

[H. Verbeet]

On 05/03/06, Uwe Bonnes <bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> compiling a recent CVS checkout, I go a failure with GL_STENCIL_BACK_FAIL
> etc undefined.
> Same problem for me.
> http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2006-March/045297.html
> It seems that a patch from Vitaly regarding wined3d_gl.h from
> yesterday evening as notor only partial applied.
> Well, no, the patch is just like that. It assumes
> GL_STENCIL_BACK_FAIL, GL_STENCIL_BACK_PASS_DEPTH_FAIL and
> GL_STENCIL_BACK_PASS_DEPTH_PASS are defined, which is not guaranteed.
> Appended patch lets me circumvent that problem.
> I'm not sure if GL_STENCIL_BACK_FAIL and GL_STENCIL_BACK_FAIL_ATI are
> interchangeable, but more importantly it makes the same kind of
> assumptions about what's going to be defined.

[Compile problem] GL_STENCIL_BACK_FAIL vs. GL_STENCIL_BACK_FAIL_ATI

[Uwe Bonnes]

> > > > > "H" == H Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com> writes:

...
    >> Appended patch lets me circumvent that problem.
    H> I'm not sure if GL_STENCIL_BACK_FAIL and GL_STENCIL_BACK_FAIL_ATI are
    H> interchangeable, but more importantly it makes the same kind of
    H> assumptions about what's going to be defined.

I said "circumvent" not "solve"...
-- 
Uwe Bonnes                bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de

Institut fuer Kernphysik  Schlossgartenstrasse 9  64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. [phone] -------- Fax. [phone] ----------

[Compile problem] GL_STENCIL_BACK_FAIL vs. GL_STENCIL_BACK_FAIL_ATI

[H. Verbeet]

On 05/03/06, Uwe Bonnes <bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote:
> I said "circumvent" not "solve"...
> Fair enough, but just removing the lines would probably work as well. :-)

[Compile problem] GL_STENCIL_BACK_FAIL vs. GL_STENCIL_BACK_FAIL_ATI

[Vitaly Budovski]

Uwe Bonnes wrote:
> > > > > > "H" == H Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com> writes:
>
> ...
>     >> Appended patch lets me circumvent that problem.
>     H> I'm not sure if GL_STENCIL_BACK_FAIL and GL_STENCIL_BACK_FAIL_ATI are
>     H> interchangeable, but more importantly it makes the same kind of
>     H> assumptions about what's going to be defined.
>
> I said "circumvent" not "solve"...

This patch 
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2006-March/024775.html 
should solve the problem with missing defines.