OK, I'd like to handle that [and any similar cases] in a follow-up
patch with some additional piglits.
-- Chris
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net> wrote:
> Chris Forbes <chr...@ijw.co.nz> writes:
>>[...]
>> @@ -4662,6 +4673,7 @@ ast_process_structure_or_interface_block(exec_list
>> *instructions,
>> fields[i].interpolation =
>> interpret_interpolation_qualifier(qual, var_mode, state, &loc);
>> fields[i].centroid = qual->flags.q.centroid ? 1 : 0;
>> + fields[i].sample = qual->flags.q.sample ? 1 : 0;
>
> Hi Chris, I just realized, we should probably make sure that this
> doesn't happen in a struct member declaration -- Only precision
> qualifiers are allowed in them according to the GL spec.
>
>>
>> if (qual->flags.q.row_major || qual->flags.q.column_major) {
>> if (!qual->flags.q.uniform) {
>> @@ -4930,6 +4942,8 @@ ast_interface_block::hir(exec_list *instructions,
>> earlier_per_vertex->fields.structure[j].interpolation;
>> fields[i].centroid =
>> earlier_per_vertex->fields.structure[j].centroid;
>> + fields[i].sample =
>> + earlier_per_vertex->fields.structure[j].sample;
>> }
>> }
>>
>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
