[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] mesa: Use GL_RED for DEPTH_TEXTURE_MODE for #version 300 es shaders.
kenneth at whitecape.org
Mon Jan 21 23:27:25 PST 2013
On 01/21/2013 08:52 PM, Paul Berry wrote:
> On 21 January 2013 14:48, Kenneth Graunke <kenneth at whitecape.org
> <mailto:kenneth at whitecape.org>> wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 01:38 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Kenneth Graunke <kenneth at whitecape.org
> <mailto: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.
> 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
> 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.
> -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 =
> 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
No, but a lot of this code is going to have to get reworked when we do that.
More information about the mesa-dev