<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Flickering Shadows in The Talos Principle"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93594#c17">Comment # 17</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Flickering Shadows in The Talos Principle"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93594">bug 93594</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:sroland@vmware.com" title="Roland Scheidegger <sroland@vmware.com>"> <span class="fn">Roland Scheidegger</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to Nicolai Hähnle from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=93594#c16">comment #16</a>)
<span class="quote">>
> One annoying aspect of this language is that one can reasonably read it as
> non-uniformity only being relevant for non-helper fragments. If a pixel quad
> is partial covered by the original primitive, and discard is used in a way
> that keeps the covered pixels but discard the helper ones, should
> derivatives be defined or not?</span >
That's a good question... My interpretation would be that derivatives should be
undefined in this case if only because otherwise things get even more
complex...</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>