<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Regression: GLB 2.7 segfaults due to bogus linker precision error (259fc505) on dead variable" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97532#c10">Comment # 10</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Regression: GLB 2.7 segfaults due to bogus linker precision error (259fc505) on dead variable" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97532">bug 97532</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:lemody@gmail.com" title="Tapani Pälli <lemody@gmail.com>"> Tapani Pälli</a> <pre>(In reply to Kenneth Graunke from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=97532#c8">comment #8</a>) > You have to enforce language rules regardless of whether or not code is used. > > Nobody would suggest that a C compiler should compile: > > void main() > { > int x = "lol, who needs rules?"; > return 0; > } > > just because 'x' isn't used. That's crazy. agreed, I sent the patch only because spec language is a bit vague (surprise!), it says: "If uniforms are used in both the vertex and fragment shaders, developers should be warned if the precisions are different. Conversion of precision should never be implicit. ... blah blah .. RESOLUTION: Yes, precision qualifiers for uniforms must match." so ... conversion of precision should never happen implicitly, and precision qualifiers _must_ match, however developers should be 'warned'</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>