On 10/26/2015 05:29 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On Monday, October 26, 2015 05:02:07 PM Ian Romanick wrote:
>> On 10/26/2015 11:03 AM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
>>> Integer varyings need to be flat qualified - all others were already.
>>> I think we just missed this. Presumably some hardware passes
On Monday, October 26, 2015 05:02:07 PM Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 10/26/2015 11:03 AM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> > Integer varyings need to be flat qualified - all others were already.
> > I think we just missed this. Presumably some hardware passes this via
> > sideband and ignores attribute interp
On 10/26/2015 11:03 AM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> Integer varyings need to be flat qualified - all others were already.
> I think we just missed this. Presumably some hardware passes this via
> sideband and ignores attribute interpolation, so no one has noticed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kenneth Graunke
On Monday, October 26, 2015 02:10:29 PM Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Kenneth Graunke
> wrote:
> > Integer varyings need to be flat qualified - all others were already.
> > I think we just missed this. Presumably some hardware passes this via
> > sideband and ignores attr
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> Integer varyings need to be flat qualified - all others were already.
> I think we just missed this. Presumably some hardware passes this via
> sideband and ignores attribute interpolation, so no one has noticed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kenneth
Integer varyings need to be flat qualified - all others were already.
I think we just missed this. Presumably some hardware passes this via
sideband and ignores attribute interpolation, so no one has noticed.
Signed-off-by: Kenneth Graunke
Cc: Chris Forbes
---
src/glsl/builtin_variables.cpp |
