This bug report was migrated from our old Bugzilla tracker.

Reported in version: 2.0.2
Reported for operating system, platform: Linux, ARM

Comments on the original bug report:

On 2016-01-30 22:54:05 +0000, Gundolf Kiefer wrote:

It appears that hardware acceleration based on OpenGL ES2 does not to work properly if both OpenGL and OpenGL ES2 support are compiled in at the same time.

Is it true/known, that OpenGL ES2 and OpenGL support cannot be compiled into the library simultaneosly? If so, is there a chance to fix it?

I was working with an embedded ARM board with OpenGL ES2 support only. Hardware acceleration did not work with the stock Debian libSDL2 package, but worked perfectly after rebuilding the package with the additional option '--disable-video-opengl'. More details & discussion can be found in the original Debian bug report: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=793111 .

This bug is filed for version 2.0.2, but the issue is probably still present in 2.0.4, as the following code fragment (video/SDL_video.c:44) suggests:

/* GL and GLES2 headers conflict on Linux 32 bits /
#if SDL_VIDEO_OPENGL_ES2 && !SDL_VIDEO_OPENGL
#include "SDL_opengles2.h"
#endif / SDL_VIDEO_OPENGL_ES2 && !SDL_VIDEO_OPENGL */

On 2016-01-31 13:57:22 +0000, Alex Szpakowski wrote:

Can you retest with SDL 2.0.4? The particular set of GL headers that are included in SDL_video.c don't determine the properties of the GL or GLES context that is created.

On 2018-08-06 21:20:21 +0000, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:

Hello, and sorry if you're getting dozens of copies of this message by email.

We are closing out bugs that appear to be abandoned in some form. This can happen for lots of reasons: we couldn't reproduce it, conversation faded out, the bug was noted as fixed in a comment but we forgot to mark it resolved, the report is good but the fix is impractical, we fixed it a long time ago without realizing there was an associated report, etc.

Individually, any of these bugs might have a better resolution (such as WONTFIX or WORKSFORME or INVALID) but we've added a new resolution of ABANDONED to make this easily searchable and make it clear that it's not necessarily unreasonable to revive a given bug report.

So if this bug is still a going concern and you feel it should still be open: please feel free to reopen it! But unless you respond, we'd like to consider these bugs closed, as many of them are several years old and overwhelming our ability to prioritize recent issues.

(please note that hundred of bug reports were sorted through here, so we apologize for any human error. Just reopen the bug in that case!)

Thanks,
--ryan.