On 17 March 2016 at 22:20, Andres Gomez <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 10:28 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: >> On 16 March 2016 at 01:50, Andres Gomez <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Signed-off-by: Andres Gomez <[email protected]> >> >> For completeness should we have tess and compute version of this test? > > In these series of additional tests we have focused in VS, GS and FS > since most of the existing piglit tests are only considering those > stages.
That was because fp64 was written before tess/cs mostly, and I didn't have access to any tess/cs to test on. Though I think we've done some tess tests in the tess shader directory (not the fp64), again not sure where things that are in two specs should land. > > In addition, we were creating the tests having in mind the status of > development of the missing pieces of the i965 backend for this > extension. Covering the VS, GS and FS stages suffices to test the two > code paths used in the backend; scalar and vectorial. Hence, > theoretically, and just for the case of i965, TESS and CS are also > covered with the current tests. > > In any case, creating additional TESS and CS tests would be interesting, > from an implementation agnostic point of view. I'll try and look at the rest of the fp64 tests, they mostly pass on llvmpipe, but I'd like to investigate the failures to see what fails. Dave. _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
