On Sun, 2015-07-26 at 03:04 +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Timothy Arceri
> wrote:
> > Since commit c0cd5b var->data.binding was being used as a replacement
> > for atomic buffer index, but they don't have to be the same value they
> > just happen to end up the sa
On Sat, 2015-07-25 at 18:11 +0200, Alejandro Piñeiro wrote:
> Hi Timothy,
>
> thanks for CCing me. Just to say that it looks good to me. And FWIW,
> with this patch, the piglit subtest included on the second version of my
> patch (second version after the first review of Ian Romanick) here:
>
>
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> Since commit c0cd5b var->data.binding was being used as a replacement
> for atomic buffer index, but they don't have to be the same value they
> just happen to end up the same when binding is 0.
>
> Now we store atomic buffer index in the un
Hi Timothy,
thanks for CCing me. Just to say that it looks good to me. And FWIW,
with this patch, the piglit subtest included on the second version of my
patch (second version after the first review of Ian Romanick) here:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/piglit/2015-May/015979.html
pass pro
Since commit c0cd5b var->data.binding was being used as a replacement
for atomic buffer index, but they don't have to be the same value they
just happen to end up the same when binding is 0.
Now we store atomic buffer index in the unused var->data.index
to avoid the extra memory of putting back th
