On 3 January 2012 18:56, Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> wrote: > 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. >
Ok. Since I've spent the last two weeks or so writing tests for code other people wrote, would you mind writing the Piglit tests for GetTransformFeedbackVarying? That would have the side benefit of giving me time to respond to your comments on my other Piglit tests that are still in flight.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
