| Message ID | 1435360454-3621-1-git-send-email-t_arceri@yahoo.com.au |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 13:49 +0300, Tapani Pälli wrote: > On 06/27/2015 02:14 AM, Timothy Arceri wrote: > > Add a 3D array test and fix the expected result for an array > > without > > a subscript attached to the name. > > > > The arb_program_interface_query spec says: > > > > "If <name> exactly matches the name string of one of the active > > resources > > for <programInterface>, the index of the matched resource is > > returned. > > Additionally, if <name> would exactly match the name string of an > > active > > resource if "[0]" were appended to <name>, the index of the matched > > resource is returned." > > > > So the index should not be INVALID_INDEX when there is no > > subscript. > > Did you check if these changes pass on nvidia/amd? > > Shouldn't one give 'vs_input2[0]' as parameter? Then it would > definitely > qualify because 'vs_input2[0][0]' is ok but having only 'vs_input2' > means name check against 'vs_input2' and 'vs_input2[0]' which would > not > qualify (?) > > This was my understanding when writing the code. So how I interpret > the > spec is that if you have multiple levels, you'll need to specify > until > the last level and optionally [0] for that last one. Yes you are right its all defined in Issues 7 & 8 at the bottom of the spec. I'll send a V2 that covers more AoA combinations, I'm working on some fixes for ARB_program_interface_query in Mesa as part of my AoA work I hope to have a new series out at the end of the week.
On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 13:24 +0300, Tapani Pälli wrote: > > On 06/30/2015 12:48 PM, Timothy Arceri wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 13:49 +0300, Tapani Pälli wrote: > > > On 06/27/2015 02:14 AM, Timothy Arceri wrote: > > > > Add a 3D array test and fix the expected result for an array > > > > without > > > > a subscript attached to the name. > > > > > > > > The arb_program_interface_query spec says: > > > > > > > > "If <name> exactly matches the name string of one of the active > > > > resources > > > > for <programInterface>, the index of the matched resource is > > > > returned. > > > > Additionally, if <name> would exactly match the name string of > > > > an > > > > active > > > > resource if "[0]" were appended to <name>, the index of the > > > > matched > > > > resource is returned." > > > > > > > > So the index should not be INVALID_INDEX when there is no > > > > subscript. > > > > > > Did you check if these changes pass on nvidia/amd? > > > > > > Shouldn't one give 'vs_input2[0]' as parameter? Then it would > > > definitely > > > qualify because 'vs_input2[0][0]' is ok but having only > > > 'vs_input2' > > > means name check against 'vs_input2' and 'vs_input2[0]' which > > > would > > > not > > > qualify (?) > > > > > > This was my understanding when writing the code. So how I > > > interpret > > > the > > > spec is that if you have multiple levels, you'll need to specify > > > until > > > the last level and optionally [0] for that last one. > > > > Yes you are right its all defined in Issues 7 & 8 at the bottom of > > the > > spec. I'll send a V2 that covers more AoA combinations, I'm working > > on > > some fixes for ARB_program_interface_query in Mesa as part of my > > AoA > > work I hope to have a new series out at the end of the week. > > Great to hear that! I've noticed several failures within OpenGL ES > 3.1 > conformance tests for ARB_program_interface_query and I think some of > > those were AoA subtests. Thanks for pointing this out I'll be sure to run the ARB_program_interface_query conformance tests over my changes. Tim > > // Tapani
diff --git a/tests/spec/arb_program_interface_query/getprogramresourceindex.c b/tests/spec/arb_program_interface_query/getprogramresourceindex.c index 889b5e1..18bb1af 100755 --- a/tests/spec/arb_program_interface_query/getprogramresourceindex.c +++ b/tests/spec/arb_program_interface_query/getprogramresourceindex.c @@ -170,11 +170,21 @@ static const struct subtest_index_t index_subtests[] = { ST(vs_array, GL_UNIFORM, "sa[0].world", 0, GL_NO_ERROR), ST(vs_array, GL_UNIFORM, "sa[0].world[0]", 0, GL_NO_ERROR), ST(vs_array, GL_UNIFORM, "sa[1].hello", -1, GL_NO_ERROR), - ST( vs_aofa, GL_PROGRAM_INPUT, "vs_input2", -1, GL_NO_ERROR), + ST( vs_aofa, GL_PROGRAM_INPUT, "vs_input2", 0, GL_NO_ERROR), ST( vs_aofa, GL_PROGRAM_INPUT, "vs_input2[0]", 0, GL_NO_ERROR), ST( vs_aofa, GL_PROGRAM_INPUT, "vs_input2[0][0]", 0, GL_NO_ERROR), ST( vs_aofa, GL_PROGRAM_INPUT, "vs_input2[1][0]", -1, GL_NO_ERROR), ST( vs_aofa, GL_PROGRAM_INPUT, "vs_input2[0][1]", -1, GL_NO_ERROR), + ST( vs_aofa, GL_PROGRAM_INPUT, "vs_input3", 0, GL_NO_ERROR), + ST( vs_aofa, GL_PROGRAM_INPUT, "vs_input3[0]", 0, GL_NO_ERROR), + ST( vs_aofa, GL_PROGRAM_INPUT, "vs_input3[0][0]", 0, GL_NO_ERROR), + ST( vs_aofa, GL_PROGRAM_INPUT, "vs_input3[0][0][0]", 0, GL_NO_ERROR), + ST( vs_aofa, GL_PROGRAM_INPUT, "vs_input3[0][0][1]", -1, GL_NO_ERROR), + ST( vs_aofa, GL_PROGRAM_INPUT, "vs_input3[0][1][0]", -1, GL_NO_ERROR), + ST( vs_aofa, GL_PROGRAM_INPUT, "vs_input3[1][0][0]", -1, GL_NO_ERROR), + ST( vs_aofa, GL_PROGRAM_INPUT, "vs_input3[1][0][1]", -1, GL_NO_ERROR), + ST( vs_aofa, GL_PROGRAM_INPUT, "vs_input3[1][1][0]", -1, GL_NO_ERROR), + ST( vs_aofa, GL_PROGRAM_INPUT, "vs_input3[1][1][1]", -1, GL_NO_ERROR), ST( vs_sub, GL_VERTEX_SUBROUTINE, "vss", 0, GL_NO_ERROR), ST(vs_empty, GL_TRANSFORM_FEEDBACK_VARYING, "gl_NextBuffer", -1, GL_NO_ERROR), ST(vs_empty, GL_TRANSFORM_FEEDBACK_VARYING, "gl_SkipComponents1", -1, GL_NO_ERROR),