[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 1/6] glsl: finish up ARB_conservative_depth

Marek Olšák maraeo at gmail.com
Fri Nov 18 13:23:31 PST 2011

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Kenneth Graunke <kenneth at whitecape.org> wrote:
> On 11/18/2011 11:27 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
>> diff --git a/src/glsl/ir_clone.cpp b/src/glsl/ir_clone.cpp
>> index e8ac9fb..c63615c 100644
>> --- a/src/glsl/ir_clone.cpp
>> +++ b/src/glsl/ir_clone.cpp
>> @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ ir_variable::clone(void *mem_ctx, struct hash_table *ht) const
>>     var->pixel_center_integer = this->pixel_center_integer;
>>     var->explicit_location = this->explicit_location;
>>     var->has_initializer = this->has_initializer;
>> +   var->depth_layout = this->depth_layout;
>>     var->num_state_slots = this->num_state_slots;
>>     if (this->state_slots) {
> This looks like a useful hunk that we must've missed.  It's also fairly
> unrelated to the rest of your patch (splitting AMD/ARB enable bits).
> I don't think we need to split the AMD/ARB enable bits; it's the exact
> same extension with a name change and some rewording of the spec language.
> I'd be in favor of pushing this hunk as it's own patch and dropping the
> rest.  You can have my R-b on such a patch.

I am not splitting the enables, they were already split. I was only
making both the extensions work. AMD_conservative_depth was broken at
least because of the missing line in the 'clone' function.
ARB_conservative_depth was broken completely (it wasn't even accepted
by the #extension directive). I am not for having separate flags
either, but the cleanup was not meant to be part of the patch. I can
rework it if needed though.


More information about the mesa-dev mailing list