On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 18:51:24 -0800, Paul Berry <stereotype...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3 January 2012 18:16, Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> wrote: > > > > > This series is Reviewed-by: Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> > > > > With this and the fix I have for glGetTransformFeedbackVarying(), I > > think we should be passing the oglc tests, except for one more case: > > They try to ask for whole arrays to be fed back, without [] in the > > declaration. The clearest text I could find on this point was a > > RESOLUTION: in the spec, but it kind of sounded to me like the > > resolution was about working around "how to I get feedback from my huge > > amount of varying data when I have so few TFB attributes available?" > > Did you end up testing whether other drivers accepted non-subscripted > > TFB varyings for varying arrays? > > > > No, I didn't write any tests of non-subscripted arrays. My interpretation > of the spec had been that they weren't allowed, but now that I'm re-reading > it, I'm reconsidering. I'll investigate on the nVidia proprietary linux > driver and let you know what I find out. > > Do you have Piglit tests for glGetTransformFeedbackVarying()? I was > starting to write some, but it was slow going and I don't want to duplicate > effort.
Nope, I was meaning to get at least a test of the particular piece of spec I was hung up on (GetTFVarying reflecting linked state, not next state), and didn't get to it.
pgpPeySc4W5NI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
