On 07/18/2013 11:39 AM, Paul Berry wrote:
On 17 July 2013 18:24, Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org
<mailto:kenn...@whitecape.org>> wrote:
Nothing actually uses this yet.
Signed-off-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org
<mailto:kenn...@whitecape.org>>
---
src/glsl/ast.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
src/glsl/ast_type.cpp | 6 +++++-
src/glsl/glsl_parser.yy | 12 ++++++++++++
3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/glsl/ast.h b/src/glsl/ast.h
index 6aede00..d98f1a3 100644
--- a/src/glsl/ast.h
+++ b/src/glsl/ast.h
@@ -413,6 +413,12 @@ struct ast_type_qualifier {
*/
unsigned explicit_index:1;
+ /**
+ * Flag set if GL_ARB_shading_language_420pack "binding"
layout
+ * qualifier is used.
+ */
+ unsigned explicit_binding:1;
+
/** \name Layout qualifiers for GL_AMD_conservative_depth */
/** \{ */
unsigned depth_any:1;
@@ -456,6 +462,14 @@ struct ast_type_qualifier {
int index;
/**
+ * Binding specified via GL_ARB_shading_language_420pack's
"binding" keyword.
+ *
+ * \note
+ * This field is only valid if \c explicit_binding is set.
+ */
+ int binding;
+
+ /**
* Return true if and only if an interpolation qualifier is
present.
*/
bool has_interpolation() const;
diff --git a/src/glsl/ast_type.cpp b/src/glsl/ast_type.cpp
index 4cbb835..275b2a1 100644
--- a/src/glsl/ast_type.cpp
+++ b/src/glsl/ast_type.cpp
@@ -71,7 +71,8 @@ ast_type_qualifier::has_layout() const
|| this->flags.q.row_major
|| this->flags.q.packed
|| this->flags.q.explicit_location
- || this->flags.q.explicit_index;
+ || this->flags.q.explicit_index
+ || this->flags.q.explicit_binding;
}
bool
@@ -145,6 +146,9 @@ ast_type_qualifier::merge_qualifier(YYLTYPE *loc,
if (q.flags.q.explicit_index)
this->index = q.index;
+ if (q.flags.q.explicit_binding)
+ this->binding = q.binding;
+
return true;
}
diff --git a/src/glsl/glsl_parser.yy b/src/glsl/glsl_parser.yy
index 3867cf8..013b327 100644
--- a/src/glsl/glsl_parser.yy
+++ b/src/glsl/glsl_parser.yy
@@ -1254,6 +1254,18 @@ layout_qualifier_id:
}
}
+ if (state->ARB_shading_language_420pack_enable &&
+ strcmp("binding", $1) == 0) {
+ $$.flags.q.explicit_binding = 1;
+
+ if ($3 >= 0) {
Isn't this redundant with the check performed by
validate_binding_qualifier (which is added in patch 4)? I'd rather not
do the same check in two places, and I have a minor preference to drop
it from here and do it only in validate_binding_qualifier.
Yes, mostly. The YYERROR here causes it to stop parsing as well, but I
don't really know if that's a feature. All the other layout qualifiers
enforce the >= 0 check here in the parser, so I did likewise for symmetry.
But I do prefer handling all the range checking in one place, so I'm
happy to remove this and just keep the check in
validate_binding_qualifier().
+ $$.binding = $3;
+ } else {
+ _mesa_glsl_error(& @3, state, "invalid binding %d
specified\n", $3);
+ YYERROR;
+ }
+ }
+
/* If the identifier didn't match any known layout identifiers,
* emit an error.
*/
--
1.8.3.2
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org <mailto:mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
