On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Jordan Justen <jljus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The check was in the wrong place, such that if a shader incorrectly put
>>> a preprocessor token before the #version declaration, the version would
>>> be resolved twice, leading to a segmentation fault when attempting to
>>> redefine the __VERSION__ macro.
>>>
>>> #define GL_ARB_sample_shading
>>> #version 130
>>> void main() {}
>>>
>>> Also, rename glcpp_parser_resolve_version to
>>> glcpp_parser_resolve_implicit_version to avoid confusion.
>>> ---
>>> I couldn't come up with something better to clarify the naming. Feel free
>>> to suggest something better.
>>>
>>> src/glsl/glcpp/glcpp-parse.y | 22 +++++++++++-----------
>>> src/glsl/glcpp/glcpp.h | 2 +-
>>> src/glsl/glcpp/pp.c | 2 +-
>>> 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/glsl/glcpp/glcpp-parse.y b/src/glsl/glcpp/glcpp-parse.y
>>> index 184e5c2..efcf139 100644
>>> --- a/src/glsl/glcpp/glcpp-parse.y
>>> +++ b/src/glsl/glcpp/glcpp-parse.y
>>> @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ line:
>>> ralloc_asprintf_rewrite_tail (&parser->output,
>>> &parser->output_length, "\n");
>>> }
>>> | HASH_LINE {
>>> - glcpp_parser_resolve_version(parser);
>>> + glcpp_parser_resolve_implicit_version(parser);
>>> } pp_tokens NEWLINE {
>>>
>>> if (parser->skip_stack == NULL ||
>>> @@ -254,10 +254,10 @@ define:
>>>
>>> control_line:
>>> HASH_DEFINE {
>>> - glcpp_parser_resolve_version(parser);
>>> + glcpp_parser_resolve_implicit_version(parser);
>>> } define
>>> | HASH_UNDEF {
>>> - glcpp_parser_resolve_version(parser);
>>> + glcpp_parser_resolve_implicit_version(parser);
>>> } IDENTIFIER NEWLINE {
>>> macro_t *macro = hash_table_find (parser->defines, $3);
>>> if (macro) {
>>> @@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ control_line:
>>> ralloc_free ($3);
>>> }
>>> | HASH_IF {
>>> - glcpp_parser_resolve_version(parser);
>>> + glcpp_parser_resolve_implicit_version(parser);
>>> } conditional_tokens NEWLINE {
>>> /* Be careful to only evaluate the 'if' expression if
>>> * we are not skipping. When we are skipping, we
>>> @@ -299,14 +299,14 @@ control_line:
>>> _glcpp_parser_skip_stack_push_if (parser, & @1, 0);
>>> }
>>> | HASH_IFDEF {
>>> - glcpp_parser_resolve_version(parser);
>>> + glcpp_parser_resolve_implicit_version(parser);
>>> } IDENTIFIER junk NEWLINE {
>>> macro_t *macro = hash_table_find (parser->defines, $3);
>>> ralloc_free ($3);
>>> _glcpp_parser_skip_stack_push_if (parser, & @1, macro !=
>>> NULL);
>>> }
>>> | HASH_IFNDEF {
>>> - glcpp_parser_resolve_version(parser);
>>> + glcpp_parser_resolve_implicit_version(parser);
>>> } IDENTIFIER junk NEWLINE {
>>> macro_t *macro = hash_table_find (parser->defines, $3);
>>> ralloc_free ($3);
>>> @@ -380,7 +380,7 @@ control_line:
>>> _glcpp_parser_handle_version_declaration(parser, $2, $3,
>>> true);
>>> }
>>> | HASH NEWLINE {
>>> - glcpp_parser_resolve_version(parser);
>>> + glcpp_parser_resolve_implicit_version(parser);
>>> }
>>> ;
>>>
>>> @@ -2024,6 +2024,9 @@
>>> _glcpp_parser_handle_version_declaration(glcpp_parser_t *parser, intmax_t
>>> versio
>>> {
>>> const struct gl_extensions *extensions = parser->extensions;
>>>
>>> + if (parser->version_resolved)
>>> + return;
>>> +
>>> parser->version_resolved = true;
>>
>> Would this lead to the version being stuck at the implicit version
>> since parser->version_resolved would be set in the implicit case too?
>>
>> It looks like something like:
>> #define GL_ARB_sample_shading
>> #version 150
>>
>> ...might not end up hitting this code:
>> if (version >= 150)
>> add_builtin_define(parser, "GL_core_profile", 1);
>>
>> -Jordan
>
> That's intended. #version has to be the first non-comment token. If
> it's not, the version is 1.10 (or 1.00 in ES).
Series
Reviewed-by: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
