[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] glsl: expose textureQueryLod in GLSL 4.00+ fragment shaders

[Timothy Arceri]

On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 14:06 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu>
> > wrote:
> > > So just stick something like
> > > 
> > > """
> > > From the ARB_texture_query_lod spec:
> > > 
> > >     (3) The core specification uses the "Lod" spelling, not
> > > "LOD". Should
> > >         this extension be modified to use "Lod"?
> > > 
> > >       RESOLVED: The "Lod" spelling is the correct spelling for
> > > the core
> > >       specification and the preferred spelling for use. However,
> > > use of
> > >       "LOD" also exists, as the extension predated the core
> > > specification,
> > >       so this extension won't remove use of "LOD".
> > > """
> > > 
> > > as the commit message? Fine by me. It seems excessive to put that
> > > into
> > > builtin_functions.cpp... but if people feel strongly, I can do
> > > that
> > > too.
> > 
> > People tend to read code more than commit messages, so putting it
> > in
> > the code is better.
> 
> I don't really see what it adds to either the commit message or the
> code... we don't have stuff in the code for like "xyz added by spec
> bar". It's pretty obvious from the availability predicate... I don't
> see a single other instance of this in builtin_functions.cpp.

I don't necessarily think you need to put it in the code, but commit
messages are cheap. The code makes it obvious that this is the way it
should be done, but its not immediately obvious why this sillyness is
forced on us.

For example if its a spec bug that was later fixed but applications
still expect the old behaviour? or is it a bug that is noted but will
not be fixed?