Ian Romanick <i...@freedesktop.org> writes: > [ Unknown signature status ] > On 07/18/2018 03:03 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: >> Ian Romanick <i...@freedesktop.org> writes: >> >>> On 07/16/2018 02:46 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: >>>> This fixes dEQP case: >>>> >>>> dEQP-GLES2.functional.shaders.scoping.valid.local_variable_hides_function_parameter_fragment >>> >>> Are we sure that test is correct? I'm sure I already know the answer, >>> but does the test contain any justification or spec references? I just >>> re-read section 4.2 (Scoping) of the ESSL 1.00 spec, and I don't see >>> anything to support this. Did I miss something? >>> >>> In fact, the grammar says: >>> >>> function_definition: >>> function_prototype compound_statement_no_new_scope >>> >>> So... I think this test is just wrong. >> >> OK, so I'm confused why this test still exists, if people have managed >> to get conformance on Mesa. I'm on master of VK-GL-CTS, and it's still >> in the mustpass file: >> >> external/openglcts/data/mustpass/gles/aosp_mustpass/master/gles2-master.txt:dEQP-GLES2.functional.shaders.scoping.valid.local_variable_hides_function_parameter_fragment > > There are a huge pile of test lists, and I have never really understood > the whole mess. There are some that only matter for some kind of > Android conformance runs. There are some that only matter for Khronos > conformance runs. And there are some that don't seem to matter for > anything at all. > >> I don't see anything that would exclude the test -- there's >> gles2-driver-issues.txt, but that appears to only be used to exclude >> tests from AOSP DEQP usage. >> >> Could whoever on the Intel side submitted a conformance package for Mesa >> send me a copy? I haven't been able to find it on the Khronos site, and >> I suspect it would help me understand how to achieve conformance with >> Mesa. >> dEQP-GLES3.functional.shaders.preprocessor.predefined_macros.line_2_vertex >> is another one that fails on Mesa with i965, and seems to have been in >> the testsuite forever. > > When we do conformance submissions, we don't run off master. We use > whatever is tip of the per-API release branch. We then do the > "official" run using 'cd external/openglcts/modules; ./cts-runner > --type=<api-version>'. I haven't pulled any of the repos since last > year, so this information may be out of date.
I'm still doing my current run (3 days in) off of master. I'll swap to the release branch next. Still, since I can't find any delta in the release branch that would exclude these tests, I would really, really like to see someone's conformance package for GLES on Mesa.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
