On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:08:19 -0700, Brian Paul <bri...@vmware.com> wrote:
>> The functions that read depth/stencil values understand all (packed)
>> depth/stencil buffer formats now so there's no reason to use the
>> wrappers.
>>
>> Also, improve the format checks in fast_copy_pixels() to catch mismatched
>> depth/stencil cases.
>
>> + if (type == GL_STENCIL || type == GL_DEPTH_COMPONENT) {
>> + /* can't handle packed depth+stencil here */
>> + if (_mesa_is_format_packed_depth_stencil(srcRb->Format) ||
>> + _mesa_is_format_packed_depth_stencil(dstRb->Format))
>> + return GL_FALSE;
>> + }
>> + else if (type == GL_DEPTH_STENCIL) {
>> + /* can't handle separate depth/stencil buffers */
>> + if (!_mesa_is_format_packed_depth_stencil(srcRb->Format) ||
>> + !_mesa_is_format_packed_depth_stencil(dstRb->Format))
>> + return GL_FALSE;
>> + }
>
> I think the GL_DEPTH_STENCIL test here wants
> srcRb != srcFb->Attachment[BUFFER_STENCIL].Renderbuffer and same for
> dst. Other than that, looks good.
And remove the _mesa_is_format_packed_depth_stencil() calls, right?
If Att[BUFFER_DEPTH] == Att[BUFFER_STENCIL] we clearly have a combined
depth+stencil buffer.
>
> 9, 10, 12, 13 are:
>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net>
-Brian
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
