On 12.02.2016 17:53, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On Thu, 2016-02-11 at 20:10 -0500, Ilia Mirkin wrote:This fixes dEQP-GLES31.functional.uniform_location.negative.atomic_fragment dEQP-GLES31.functional.uniform_location.negative.atomic_vertex Both of which have lines like layout(location = 3, binding = 0, offset = 0) uniform atomic_uint uni0; The ARB_explicit_uniform_location spec makes a very tangential mention regarding atomic counters, but location isn't something that makes sense with them. Signed-off-by: Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> --- Had no clue where to stick this check... this seemed like as good a place as any. src/compiler/glsl/ast_to_hir.cpp | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/src/compiler/glsl/ast_to_hir.cpp b/src/compiler/glsl/ast_to_hir.cpp index dbeb5c0..9fce06b 100644 --- a/src/compiler/glsl/ast_to_hir.cpp +++ b/src/compiler/glsl/ast_to_hir.cpp @@ -4179,6 +4179,11 @@ ast_declarator_list::hir(exec_list *instructions, state->atomic_counter_offsets[qual_binding] = qual_offset; } }Maybe we should just make this: else { _mesa_glsl_error(&loc, state, "invalid atomic counter layout qualifier"); } ??
FWIW, I like Ilia's original message better because it gives the user more information about why exactly their layout qualifier is invalid. Helpful error messages are a good thing.
That said, I won't complain too loudly if making the code simpler or easier to follow ends up making the error messages slightly less helpful.
Cheers, Nicolai
+ + if (type->qualifier.flags.q.explicit_location) { + _mesa_glsl_error(&loc, state, + "atomic counters cannot have an explicit location"); + } } if (this->declarations.is_empty()) {_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
