On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 9:04 AM Erik Faye-Lund <erik.faye-l...@collabora.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 2019-10-18 at 08:57 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 8:51 AM Erik Faye-Lund > > <erik.faye-l...@collabora.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2019-10-17 at 22:24 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > > > > In the meanwhile (unless you plan on taking up Jason's > > > > suggestion), > > > > might I recommend some assert's for the unhandled cases so that > > > > there > > > > are no surprises? > > > > > > Good idea. I sent a MR for it here: > > > > > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/merge_requests/2380 > > > > Not sure that approach works, esp with SSO. > > If so, wouldn't that already be a problem with the existing > lower_depth_clamp-stuff, then? I mean, I just lifted the logic from > there...
Yeah, that looks bogus. I'm moderately sure that checking "st->vp/gp/tep" at LinkShader time is wrong. Marek can probably confirm. -ilia _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
