On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Tapani Pälli <tapani.pa...@intel.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 09/15/2015 12:43 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> >>>> --- >>>> src/glsl/builtin_variables.cpp | 3 +++ >>>> src/glsl/shader_enums.h | 1 + >>>> src/mesa/state_tracker/st_glsl_to_tgsi.cpp | 1 + >>>> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/src/glsl/builtin_variables.cpp >>>> b/src/glsl/builtin_variables.cpp >>>> index b5e2908..7ea5db8 100644 >>>> --- a/src/glsl/builtin_variables.cpp >>>> +++ b/src/glsl/builtin_variables.cpp >>>> @@ -1050,6 +1050,9 @@ >>>> builtin_variable_generator::generate_fs_special_vars() >>>> add_input(VARYING_SLOT_LAYER, int_t, "gl_Layer"); >>>> add_input(VARYING_SLOT_VIEWPORT, int_t, "gl_ViewportIndex"); >>>> } >>>> + >>>> + if (state->is_version(450, 310)) >>> >>> >>> Hmmm... this should probably be >>> >>> state->ARB_ES3_1_compatibility_enable || state->is_version(450, 310). >>> >>> Since that doesn't exist, perhaps i should just add it in /* ... */ to >>> be uncommented later? Or I guess I could go in and add all of those >>> ext enables in. What do people think? It's easy enough to do any of >>> these. >> >> >> IMO comments would be enough for now, we can worry about ES3_1_compatibility >> when we have 3.1 done. > > OK, that was my feeling as well. > >> >>>> + add_system_value(SYSTEM_VALUE_FRAG_HELPER, bool_t, >>>> "gl_HelperInvocation"); >>>> } >>>> >>>> >>>> diff --git a/src/glsl/shader_enums.h b/src/glsl/shader_enums.h >>>> index 7c598b6..6bc93a5 100644 >>>> --- a/src/glsl/shader_enums.h >>>> +++ b/src/glsl/shader_enums.h >>>> @@ -352,6 +352,7 @@ typedef enum >>>> SYSTEM_VALUE_SAMPLE_ID, >>>> SYSTEM_VALUE_SAMPLE_POS, >>>> SYSTEM_VALUE_SAMPLE_MASK_IN, >>>> + SYSTEM_VALUE_FRAG_HELPER, >> >> >> Why not call it SYSTEM_VALUE_HELPER_INVOCATION? Most builtin variables are >> named with matching names to spec. > > I didn't want something so unnecessarily long. Here are some counterexamples: > > .... > > I could have sworn there were some, but apparently not :) The > VARYING_SLOT_* are a lot more counter-example-ish, like > VARYING_SLOT_POS, VARYING_SLOT_FACE, VARYING_SLOT_PNTC, etc. > > Anyone else have thoughts on how these should be named?
ES 3.1 appears to be getting closer to reality... probably good to close this one out... Reviews/opinions welcome. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
