<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Mesa incorrectly thinks #extension directive is in the middle of a shader" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89415#c7">Comment # 7</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Mesa incorrectly thinks #extension directive is in the middle of a shader" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89415">bug 89415</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:idr@freedesktop.org" title="Ian Romanick <idr@freedesktop.org>"> Ian Romanick</a> <pre>(In reply to Kenneth Graunke from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=89415#c6">comment #6</a>) > Those two shaders are both legal and compile successfully here, with no > special options. The extension directives are definitely in the correct > place, and I don't get any complaints about that. > > It must have been a different shader that broke. Either that or the engine / framework / application inserts some stuff at the top of the shader that the author didn't put there. The Second Life viewer has that problem. Getting the output of MESA_GLSL=error should help sort that out. I'm not sure why the output in <a href="attachment.cgi?id=113970" name="attach_113970" title="MESA's IR.">attachment #113970</a> <a href="attachment.cgi?id=113970&action=edit" title="MESA's IR.">[details]</a> has the GLSL IR but not the original GLSL code. That's... weird.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>