On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> wrote:
> On 11/18/2011 11:27 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
>> diff --git a/src/glsl/ir_clone.cpp b/src/glsl/ir_clone.cpp
>> index e8ac9fb..c63615c 100644
>> --- a/src/glsl/ir_clone.cpp
>> +++ b/src/glsl/ir_clone.cpp
>> @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ ir_variable::clone(void *mem_ctx, struct hash_table *ht)
>> const
>> var->pixel_center_integer = this->pixel_center_integer;
>> var->explicit_location = this->explicit_location;
>> var->has_initializer = this->has_initializer;
>> + var->depth_layout = this->depth_layout;
>>
>> var->num_state_slots = this->num_state_slots;
>> if (this->state_slots) {
>
> This looks like a useful hunk that we must've missed. It's also fairly
> unrelated to the rest of your patch (splitting AMD/ARB enable bits).
>
> I don't think we need to split the AMD/ARB enable bits; it's the exact
> same extension with a name change and some rewording of the spec language.
>
> I'd be in favor of pushing this hunk as it's own patch and dropping the
> rest. You can have my R-b on such a patch.
I am not splitting the enables, they were already split. I was only
making both the extensions work. AMD_conservative_depth was broken at
least because of the missing line in the 'clone' function.
ARB_conservative_depth was broken completely (it wasn't even accepted
by the #extension directive). I am not for having separate flags
either, but the cleanup was not meant to be part of the patch. I can
rework it if needed though.
Marek
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
