On Monday, December 19, 2016 8:41:17 PM PST Matt Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org>
> wrote:
> > For what it's worth, the OpenGL wiki's Program Introspection page(*),
> > under "Interface block member naming" gives an example matching my above
> > reply. It says:
> >
> > uniform BlockName3
> > {
> > int mem;
> > } instanceName3[4];
> >
> > This definition will create a single member named "BlockName3.min".
> > The reason this array of four blocks only counts as having one
> > variable is because each of the four blocks uses the same internal
> > definition. There is nothing that could be queried from
> > BlockName3[1] that could not be queried from BlockName3[0].
> >
> > (*) https://www.khronos.org/opengl/wiki/Program_Introspection
> >
> > I think that's a decent explanation of why this is reasonable. Because
> > the block entries have per-element entries (Block[0], Block[1], etc.
> > you can query whether a block is referenced (i.e. a UBO binding is used).
>
> This might be a stupid question, but why is the field named "mem" in
> the code, but the following paragraph says "min"? Are the two not
> supposed to be the same?Oh. I think that's a typo. It should be BlockName3.mem.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
