[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] mesa: Use GL_RED for DEPTH_TEXTURE_MODE for #version 300 es shaders.

[Paul Berry]

On 21 January 2013 14:48, Kenneth Graunke <kenneth at whitecape.org> wrote:

> On 01/21/2013 01:38 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
>
>> Kenneth Graunke <kenneth at whitecape.org> writes:
>>
>>> ---
>>>   src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_**state.h             | 3 ++-
>>>   src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_**wm.c                | 2 +-
>>>   src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_**wm_surface_state.c  | 8 ++++++--
>>>   src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/**gen7_wm_surface_state.c | 4 ++--
>>>   4 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> I believe the BRW_NEW_VERTEX_PROGRAM/BRW_**NEW_FRAGMENT_PROGRAM dirty
>>> bits
>>> on the brw_texture_surfaces atom should cover my new usage of shProg.
>>> Eric, can you confirm?  I always get confused by _NEW_PROGRAM vs.
>>> CACHE_NEW_WM/VS_PROG vs. BRW_NEW_VERTEX/FRAGMENT_**PROGRAM.  Thanks!
>>>
>>
>> CACHE_NEW_*_PROG covers prog_data, BRW_NEW_*_PROGRAM covers the
>> brw_*_program and gl_shader_program structs, so that sounds good.  But I
>> see an issue anyway...
>>
>>  diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/**brw_wm_surface_state.c
>>> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/**brw_wm_surface_state.c
>>> index 5e99592..b609b09 100644
>>> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/**brw_wm_surface_state.c
>>> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/**brw_wm_surface_state.c
>>> @@ -685,8 +685,10 @@ brw_get_surface_num_**multisamples(unsigned
>>> num_samples)
>>>    * swizzling.
>>>    */
>>>   int
>>> -brw_get_texture_swizzle(const struct gl_texture_object *t)
>>> +brw_get_texture_swizzle(**struct gl_context *ctx,
>>> +                        const struct gl_texture_object *t)
>>>   {
>>> +   const struct gl_shader_program *shProg = ctx->Shader._**
>>> CurrentFragmentProgram;
>>>
>>
>> You're looking at the FS even if we're trying to set up textures for the
>> VS.  I think the caller should pass in the particular program, and then
>> it'll be more obvious to the caller which state flag is right.
>>
>
> Eric mentioned this on IRC:
>
> <anholt> Kayden: oh, I suppose my comment about looking at the wrong
> program in your depth change doesn't really matter since Version will be
> the same in both.
>
> which is true - otherwise the VS/FS link would have failed.
>

Is this still going to be true when we implement
ARB_separate_shader_objects?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20130121/3c08f380/attachment.html>