[Mesa-dev] [PATCH v2 03/15] glsl: parse in/out types for interface blocks

[Kenneth Graunke]

On 03/20/2013 05:19 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen at intel.com> writes:
>
>> Previously only 'uniform' was allowed for uniform blocks.
>>
>> Now, in/out can be parsed, but it will only be allowed for
>> GLSL >= 150.
>
>
>>   basic_interface_block:
>> -	UNIFORM NEW_IDENTIFIER '{' member_list '}' instance_name_opt ';'
>> +	interface_qualifier NEW_IDENTIFIER '{' member_list '}' instance_name_opt ';'
>>   	{
>>   	   ast_interface_block *const block = $6;
>>
>>   	   block->block_name = $2;
>>   	   block->declarations.push_degenerate_list_at_head(& $4->link);
>>
>> -	   if (!state->ARB_uniform_buffer_object_enable) {
>> -	      _mesa_glsl_error(& @1, state,
>> -			       "#version 140 / GL_ARB_uniform_buffer_object "
>> -			       "required for defining uniform blocks\n");
>> -	   } else if (state->ARB_uniform_buffer_object_warn) {
>> -	      _mesa_glsl_warning(& @1, state,
>> -				 "#version 140 / GL_ARB_uniform_buffer_object "
>> -				 "required for defining uniform blocks\n");
>> +	   if ($1.flags.q.uniform) {
>> +	      if (!state->ARB_uniform_buffer_object_enable) {
>> +	         _mesa_glsl_error(& @1, state,
>> +	                          "#version 140 / GL_ARB_uniform_buffer_object "
>> +	                          "required for defining uniform blocks\n");
>> +	      } else if (state->ARB_uniform_buffer_object_warn) {
>> +	         _mesa_glsl_warning(& @1, state,
>> +	                            "#version 140 / GL_ARB_uniform_buffer_object "
>> +	                            "required for defining uniform blocks\n");
>> +	      }
>> +	   } else {
>> +	      if (state->es_shader || state->language_version < 150) {
>> +	         _mesa_glsl_error(& @1, state,
>> +	                         "#version 150 required for using "
>> +	                         "interface blocks.\n");
>> +	      }
>>   	   }
>>
>>   	   /* Since block arrays require names, and both features are added in
>> @@ -1937,10 +1946,39 @@ basic_interface_block:
>>   			       "blocks with an instance name\n");
>>   	   }
>>
>> +	   unsigned interface_type_mask, interface_type_flags;
>> +	   struct ast_type_qualifier temp_type_qualifier;
>> +
>> +	   temp_type_qualifier.flags.i = 0;
>> +	   temp_type_qualifier.flags.q.uniform = true;
>> +	   temp_type_qualifier.flags.q.in = true;
>> +	   temp_type_qualifier.flags.q.out = true;
>> +	   interface_type_mask = temp_type_qualifier.flags.i;
>> +	   interface_type_flags = $1.flags.i & interface_type_mask;
>> +	   block->layout.flags.i |= interface_type_flags;
>
> Given that an interface_qualifier ($1) only has either uniform, in, or
> out set, I don't see why this masking is needed.

Agreed.  If you wanted to sanity check this, you could do:

assert(q.uniform + q.in + q.out == 1);

--Ken