On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 01:37:27 -0700, Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> wrote: > On 06/04/2011 04:29 PM, Chad Versace wrote: > > On 06/03/2011 03:33 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote: > >> Do we need to emit 3DSTATE_STENCIL_BUFFER with all 0's in the stencil_irb > >> == NULL case? Ditto for HiZ I guess. Just being a > >> bit paranoid. > > > > The test results for these paranoiac cases pass, so paranoia is unneeded. > > Regarding "Do we need to emit 3DSTATE_STENCIL_BUFFER > > with all 0's in the stencil_irb == NULL case", see tests: > > * hiz-depth-test-fbo-d24-s0 : column 6 > > * hiz-depth-stencil-fbo-d24-s0 : columns 3, 6 > > Regarding "Ditto for HiZ", the following test runs emit a stencil buffer > > but no hiz buffer: > > * hiz-stencil-test-fbo-d0-s8 : column 6 > > * hiz-stencil-read-fbo-d0-s8 : column 6 > > * hiz-depth-stencil-fbo-d0-s8 : column 6 > > Hrm. I was thinking of a slightly more elaborate case: Render to an FBO > that has both depth and stencil...then render to another FBO that only > has depth. The question is: would the old stencil buffer stay > programmed and somehow get used. Although come to think of it, I think > the "Separate Stencil Enable" bit in 3DSTATE_DEPTH_BUFFER ought to be > sufficient. So it's probably okay.
To be extra safe, we could upload a zero-ish 3DSTATE_STENCIL_BUFFER when there is no stencil buffer. But, that upload is really wasted bandwidth, since the separate-stencil-enable bit is disabled and hardware won't read 3DSTATE_STENCIL_BUFFER anyway. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
