[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] mesa/tests: add KHR_debug GLES glGetPointervKHR entry points

[Emil Velikov]

On 4 December 2015 at 00:23, Matt Turner <mattst88 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3 December 2015 at 22:15, Matt Turner <mattst88 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Should have been part of commit f53f9eb8d49 "glapi: add GetPointervKHR
>>>> to the ES dispatch".
>>>>
>>>> Note: as the core symbol is present in GLES 1.1 we cannot (should not)
>>>> include the KHR one in the es11 table. Add the symbol, commented out,
>>>> with description for posterity.
>>>>
>>>> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93235
>>>> Fixes: f53f9eb8d49 "glapi: add GetPointervKHR to the ES dispatch".
>>>> Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  src/mesa/main/tests/dispatch_sanity.cpp | 3 +++
>>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/src/mesa/main/tests/dispatch_sanity.cpp b/src/mesa/main/tests/dispatch_sanity.cpp
>>>> index 97f81f9..687c8f3 100644
>>>> --- a/src/mesa/main/tests/dispatch_sanity.cpp
>>>> +++ b/src/mesa/main/tests/dispatch_sanity.cpp
>>>> @@ -2049,6 +2049,8 @@ const struct function gles11_functions_possible[] = {
>>>>     { "glGetDebugMessageLogKHR", 11, -1 },
>>>>     { "glGetObjectLabelKHR", 11, -1 },
>>>>     { "glGetObjectPtrLabelKHR", 11, -1 },
>>>> +   // The following clashes with the non KHR definition above
>>>
>>> We have comments elsewhere like
>>>
>>>    // We check for the aliased -OES version in GLES 2
>>>
>>> Can you make the comment match that?
>>>
>> Slightly confused here. The example is the opposite of that I'm doing here.
>
> Huh. I'm not sure why. It's just a problem of testing for two
> functions that are aliased.
>
> Whether we test for the "regular" one of the extension one doesn't
> matter. All I was saying was "make your comment match the format of
> the others noting the same problem elsewhere"
>
> ... unless I've misunderstood something.
>
You're spot on. Earlier I've went with the shorter solution - with v2
things are consistent.

>> I'm fine either way just let me know whichever you prefer.
>> -Emil
>
> FWIW, make check still fails for me even with this patch.
Do you have a log that I can take a look ? I've `make clean'ed and
rebuild a couple of times just in case and things seems to pass here.

Thanks
Emil