OK, in that case: Reviewed-by: Chris Forbes <chr...@ijw.co.nz>
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Paul Berry <stereotype...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9 January 2014 18:19, Chris Forbes <chr...@ijw.co.nz> wrote: >> >> I'm not convinced this is correct/safe, at least for the meta clear. >> >> The GL 3.2 spec says, on page 221 (page 235 of the PDF): >> >> * If the number of layers of each attachment are not all identical, >> rendering >> will be limited to the smallest number of layers of any attachment. >> >> And then in the description of layered framebuffers on page 240 (page >> 254 of the PDF): >> >> If the fragment’s layer number is negative, or greater than the >> minimum number of layers of any attachment, >> the effects of the fragment on the framebuffer contents are undefined. >> >> Blorp clears can obviously do whatever they like, since they don't >> directly use the user's framebuffer configuration. > > > Yeah, there was some discussion about that here: > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2013-December/049492.html > > Basically, my justification for doing it this way is that even though it's > undefined by GL what happens when you write to a layer that doesn't exist in > all attachments, we know that it works in i965, and i965 is the only user of > this code (it's the only back-end that supports layered framebuffers and > uses Meta). > > In fact, I would venture to say that i965 is likely to be the only user of > this code for the forseeable future, since the only other back-end that uses > Meta is the i915 driver, and it's never going to be capable of supporting > layered framebuffers. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
