This was marked as somewhere we're deviating from the spec in order to follow what nVIDIA does. Is there no longer a reason to?
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez <sigles...@igalia.com> wrote: > According to the spec: > <renderbuffertarget> must be RENDERBUFFER and <renderbuffer> > should be set to the name of the renderbuffer object to be > attached to the framebuffer. <renderbuffer> must be either > zero or the name of an existing renderbuffer object of type > <renderbuffertarget>, otherwise an INVALID_OPERATION error is > generated. > > This patch changes the previous returned GL_INVALID_VALUE to > GL_INVALID_OPERATION. > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76894 > > Cc: mesa-sta...@lists.freedesktop.org > Reviewed-by: Anuj Phogat <anuj.pho...@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez <sigles...@igalia.com> > --- > src/mesa/main/fbobject.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/mesa/main/fbobject.c b/src/mesa/main/fbobject.c > index 6c4f1b5..7669a0c 100644 > --- a/src/mesa/main/fbobject.c > +++ b/src/mesa/main/fbobject.c > @@ -2676,8 +2676,7 @@ _mesa_FramebufferRenderbuffer(GLenum target, GLenum > attachment, > return; > } > else if (rb == &DummyRenderbuffer) { > - /* This is what NVIDIA does */ > - _mesa_error(ctx, GL_INVALID_VALUE, > + _mesa_error(ctx, GL_INVALID_OPERATION, > "glFramebufferRenderbufferEXT(renderbuffer %u)", > renderbuffer); > return; > -- > 1.9.1 > > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > 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
