[Mesa-dev] [Mesa-stable] [PATCH] mesa: allow GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE type for SNORM reads

[Andres Gomez]

On Wed, 2018-08-29 at 08:22 -0700, Dylan Baker wrote:
> Quoting Tapani Pälli (2018-08-27 04:46:37)
> > OpenGL ES spec states:
> >    "For normalized fixed-point rendering surfaces, the combination format
> >     RGBA and type UNSIGNED_BYTE is accepted."
> > 
> > This fixes following failing VK-GL-CTS tests:
> > 
> >    KHR-GLES3.packed_pixels.pbo_rectangle.rgba8_snorm
> >    KHR-GLES3.packed_pixels.rectangle.rgba8_snorm
> >    KHR-GLES3.packed_pixels.varied_rectangle.rgba8_snorm
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tapani Pälli <tapani.palli at intel.com>
> > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107658
> > Cc: mesa-stable at lists.freedesktop.org
> > ---
> > 
> > This is a partial fix to the bug. I believe there are 2 separate
> > issues within reported bug and this fixes the first one.
> > 
> >  src/mesa/main/readpix.c | 9 +++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/src/mesa/main/readpix.c b/src/mesa/main/readpix.c
> > index 2cbb578a37f..556c860d393 100644
> > --- a/src/mesa/main/readpix.c
> > +++ b/src/mesa/main/readpix.c
> > @@ -958,6 +958,15 @@ read_pixels_es3_error_check(struct gl_context *ctx, GLenum format, GLenum type,
> >                 return GL_NO_ERROR;
> >           }
> >        }
> > +      if (type == GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE) {
> > +         switch (internalFormat) {
> > +         case GL_R8_SNORM:
> > +         case GL_RG8_SNORM:
> > +         case GL_RGBA8_SNORM:
> > +            if (_mesa_has_EXT_render_snorm(ctx))
> > +               return GL_NO_ERROR;
> > +         }
> > +      }
> >        break;
> >     case GL_BGRA:
> >        /* GL_EXT_read_format_bgra */
> > -- 
> > 2.14.4
> > 
> 
> Hi Tapani,
> 
> This doesn't apply cleanly to 18.1 because "mesa: enable EXT_render_snorm
> extension" isn't present on the branch. Does it still make sense to pull this
> into 18.1?

Likewise for 18.2.

The offending commit that caused the regression didn't make it for any
of the current stable queues so I think it is safe just to ignore this
patch. Can you confirm?

-- 
Br,

Andres