On Wed, 2015-08-05 at 13:45 +0200, Iago Toral wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-08-05 at 20:04 +1000, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-08-05 at 10:30 +0200, Iago Toral Quiroga wrote:
> > > ---
> > > src/glsl/ast_to_hir.cpp | 9 ++++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/src/glsl/ast_to_hir.cpp b/src/glsl/ast_to_hir.cpp
> > > index e834a46..518612d 100644
> > > --- a/src/glsl/ast_to_hir.cpp
> > > +++ b/src/glsl/ast_to_hir.cpp
> > > @@ -811,8 +811,15 @@ do_assignment(exec_list *instructions, struct
> > > _mesa_glsl_parse_state *state,
> > > }
> > >
> > > ir_variable *lhs_var = lhs->variable_referenced();
> > > - if (lhs_var)
> > > + if (lhs_var) {
> > > + if (lhs_var->data.image_read_only) {
> >
> > It looks like data.read_only is always set to true for images so wouldn't
> > this
> > already be caught already by the existing read-only check?
> >
> > else if (lhs_var != NULL && lhs_var->data.read_only) {
> > _mesa_glsl_error(&lhs_loc, state,
> > "assignment to read-only variable '%s'",
> > lhs_var->name);
>
> Not as it is now, because with SSBOs we only set image_read_only and not
> read_only when the readonly qualifier is used. I suppose this is what we
> are expected to do since the SSBO spec says that behavior for these
> qualifiers on SSBOs is the same as for images:
> https://www.opengl.org/registry/specs/ARB/shader_storage_buffer_object.txt
>
> "Modify Section 4.10, Memory Qualifiers (p. 71)"
> (...)
> "(insert after third paragraph, p. 73) The memory qualifiers "coherent",
> "volatile", "restrict", "readonly", and "writeonly" may be used in the
> declaration of buffer variables (i.e., members of shader storage blocks).
> When a buffer variable is declared with a memory qualifier, the behavior
> specified for memory accesses involving image variables described above
> applies identically to memory accesses involving that buffer variable. It
> is an error to assign to a buffer variable qualified with "readonly" or to
> read from a buffer variable qualified with "writeonly".
>
> What is a bit confusing for me is that images seem to set
> image_read_only depending on whether we used the readonly qualifier or
> not (like ssbos) but then they also set read_only to true
> unconditionally, so I guess there is a difference between both fields,
Asking what the difference is was originally going to be my first question to
you :)
> but I don't know what it is exactly, specially since you can also use
> writeonly on images, for example.
So I really dont know much about images but after some reading the conclusion
I've come to is the qualifiers (image_read_only) are meant to limit how you
can use imageStore(), imageLoad() and imageAtomic*() etc.
On the other hand read_only is the usual uniform restriction stoping you from
assigning to the variable directly e.g myImage = 1; which is why its always
set to true.
If I'm correct I dont think this patch is needed.
>
> In any case, since we have both read_only and image_read_only in
> ir_variable at present, I think it makes sense to have checks for both
> of them, if one of them ends up being redundant the right thing to do
> would be to kill it completely I guess, otherwise it only gets (even)
> more confusing.
>
> Iago
>
> >
> > > + _mesa_glsl_error(&lhs_loc, state,
> > > + "assignment to read-only variable `%s'",
> > > + lhs_var->name);
> > > + error_emitted = true;
> > > + }
> > > lhs_var->data.assigned = true;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > if (!error_emitted) {
> > > if (non_lvalue_description != NULL) {
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
