Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> writes: > Hi Francisco, > > I'm looking at some piglit failures on nv10... full run at > > http://people.freedesktop.org/~imirkin/nv10-comparison/problems.html > > The specific one is: > > http://people.freedesktop.org/~imirkin/nv10-comparison/nv18-imirkin/spec/!OpenGL%201.1/copyteximage%201D.html > > Which fails in nouveau_choose_tex_format for GL_DEPTH24_STENCIL8. And > indeed, that case isn't handled. Looking through the #defines, I see a > NV20_3D_TEX_FORMAT_FORMAT_Z24 but not for the earlier versions. And > even in the nv20 case, it's not actually used in the driver. > > Does that mean that EXT_packed_depth_stencil should never have been > enabled on nouveau? I do see that it's a valid renderbuffer format > though. [It is now always enabled, since commit a92b9e60, but at the > time of the commit, it was also enabled for everything. > > Any advice? >
AFAICT EXT_packed_depth_stencil only requires the implementation to support GL_DEPTH_STENCIL for texturing if ARB_depth_texture is supported in addition -- which, as you guessed correctly, could be supported on nv20 or higher. Shouldn't the piglit test be checking if the implementation supports depth texturing before doing that? > Thanks, > > -ilia
pgpvGanZEqdKn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
