On Sun, 2015-11-08 at 12:07 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 6 November 2015 at 21:13, Timothy Arceri <t_arc...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-11-06 at 13:16 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: > > > On 5 November 2015 at 11:17, Timothy Arceri <t_arc...@yahoo.com.au> > > > wrote: > > > > From: Timothy Arceri <timothy.arc...@collabora.com> > > > > > > > > This is in preperation for compile-time constant support. > > > typo "preparation" > > > > > > > > > > > Also fix up the locations for some of the extension checking > > > > error messages in the parser. We now correctly give the location > > > > of the layout qualifier identifier rather than the integer constant. > > > > > > > > The validation is moved to two locations, for validation on variables > > > > the > > > > checks are moved to the ast to hir pass and for qualifiers that apply > > > > to > > > > the > > > > shader the validation is moved into glsl_parser_extras.cpp. > > > > > > > > In order to do validation at the later stage in glsl_parser_extras.cpp > > > > we > > > > need to temporarily add a field in ast_type_qualifier to keep track of > > > > the > > > > parser location, this will be removed in a following patch when we > > > > introduce a new type for storing the comiple-time qualifiers. > > > > > > > > Also as the set_shader_inout_layout() function in glsl parser extras > > > > is > > > > normally called after all validation is done we need to move the code > > > > that > > > > sets CompileStatus and InfoLog otherwise the newly moved error > > > > messages > > > > will > > > > be ignored. > > > Personally I would split the validate_layout_qualifiers() introduction > > > and the CompileStatus/InfoLog movement into separate patches. > > > > The reason for not doing this in a new patch is that this is existing > > functionality not new functionality, doing so would regress a bunch of > > piglit > > tests. > > > > I can do it if it makes things easier to review but it should all be > > pushed as > > one. > > > Fair enough - I'd just keep in as it then. I'll take a closer look at > some time today/tomorrow.
On second thoughts I should be able to break this up into shader level layouts and per variable layouts I think I missunderstood what you were getting at when reading your first reply. I have a version 2 in progress based on your other feedback so you might want to hold of reviewing until I send that. > > <rant> > Imho if one needs to made a few different things at once, this is a > clear indication that things are more convoluted as they should be. > </rant> > > Cheers, > Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
