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

[Ilia Mirkin]

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Timothy Arceri <t_arceri at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> 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?

OK, well I don't really care about what goes into the commit message,
so I'm not going to argue the point, but I don't want to pollute code
with this stuff for no reason.

Marek, any objections?

  -ilia