On 10/16/2013 01:46 PM, Ian Romanick wrote: > On 10/16/2013 07:43 AM, Paul Berry wrote: >> On 16 October 2013 00:26, Jordan Justen <jljus...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Also, perhaps we should log a spec bug to ask the spec to clarify this? >> >> IMHO, the intent is already clear from the fact that all the >> redeclaration examples in the spec include the in/out qualifier. The >> fact that the NVIDIA compiler sometimes misbehaves if in/out is absent >> seems like adequate confirmation to me. Spec bugs frequently take weeks >> or months to get resolved, so I guess I'm having trouble convincing >> myself that it's worth it in this case. >> >> Anyone else want to weigh in with an opinion on this? Idr? > > I think the spec is already clear, and NVIDIA's implementation is just > buggy.
Arg... but let me be clear. It is already explicitly an error to do: in vec4 foo; vec4 foo; or vec4 foo; centroid in vec4 foo; or in vec4 foo; centroid in vec4 foo; // this one is okay. vec4 foo; // this one is not. There is no reason to believe built-in variables should have a different set of rules. Right? _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list Piglit@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
