<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - ES3-CTS.gtf.GL3Tests.shadow.shadow_execution_vert fails" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91114#c9">Comment # 9</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - ES3-CTS.gtf.GL3Tests.shadow.shadow_execution_vert fails" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91114">bug 91114</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:itoral@igalia.com" title="Iago Toral <itoral@igalia.com>"> Iago Toral</a> <pre>(In reply to Tapani Pälli from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=91114#c8">comment #8</a>) > (In reply to Iago Toral from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=91114#c7">comment #7</a>) > > do you know if the bad commit breaks other CTS tests with textureGrad on > > cubes? I am wondering if the problem here might be that piglit and deqp both > > have a different expectation than the CTS. > > Nope just did a full run and the only failing tests are: > > ES3-CTS.gtf.GL3Tests.shadow.shadow_execution_vert > ES3-CTS.gtf.GL3Tests.shadow.shadow_execution_frag Ok, in that case it looks as if the CTS expectations for textureGrad on shadow cube samplers specifically are different from those in piglit/deqp. I have just run bin/tex-miplevel-selection textureGrad CubeShadow with the proprietary nVidia driver and it passes, so I guess that points to piglit's expectations being correct here. Could it be that the CTS test is not correct? I find it difficult to believe that piglit/deqp and the nVidia implementation are all incorrect. That said, I wonder if there is something special about this CTS test that makes it different from the piglit tests so as to need a different LOD computation.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>