On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:09 PM, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> The extension is totally different... it adds things like "unsigned >>> >> int", and a ton of texture*/shadow* variants. If it helps this one >>> >> shader compile, that's a coincidence. IMO it's dangerous to start >>> >> throwing things like this in. >>> > >>> > >>> > That's why it prints a warning. The extension isn't exposed. >>> >>> It bumps the GLSL version to 1.30 though, which e.g. makes "in" and >>> "out" a keyword. And a bunch of other stuff like that. Just seems >>> dangerous. >>> >> >> It may seem dangerous, but not after you consider that it changes a >> compile failure into "some behavior" and a warning. That is pretty safe, >> because you'll either get a compile failure again, or you'll get correct >> behavior as if a subset of the extension was exposed. Either case is >> harmless. >> > > This does seem really sketchy. It's a spec violation because we are > required to fail the shader compile for unknown extensions. And it's > letting a shader through even though we know it's likely to die in a fire > later on due to the fact that we only implement 30% of gpu_shader4. On top > of that, the best justification we can come up with is a broken app that > assumes gpu_shader4 but doesn't actually use it. > The best justification that we actually have is that there is an app which uses GLSL 1.20 + EXT_gpu_shader4 but actually only needs GLSL 1.30. Marek
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
