<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 7:04 AM, Alejandro Piñeiro <<a href="mailto:apinheiro@igalia.com" target="_blank">apinheiro@igalia.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Gentle ping to Jason, as he probably missed that I was trying (but failed) to make a question. See below (also skipped most of the original email) On 18/01/18 13:31, Alejandro Piñeiro wrote: > > + > +#include "nir_spirv.h" > + > +#include "vtn_private.h" > +#include "spirv_info.h" > + > +static bool > +vtn_validate_preamble_instruction(struct vtn_builder *b, SpvOp > opcode, > + const uint32_t *w, unsigned count) > > > I think you could probably re-use all of > vtn_handle_preamble_instruction. It would do a bit more than strictly > needed (like handle capabilities) but I don't see any harm in it. >> Ok, will try to re-use it. > Well, I tried, and here the situation: as the validation is doing the > barely minimum to check for the errors defined at the method > glSpecializeShader, we are also passing it the barely minimum parameters > needed. So we are not passing spirv_to_nir_options. So if we try to > reuse vtn_handle_preamble_instruction during the validation, we start to > get several "Unsupported SPIR-V capabilities" vtn_warnings. So the > option is passing the spirv_to_nir_options here too, or just keep the > simplified version that this patch already includes. What option would you prefer? Pass the spirv_to_nir_options to the validation method in order to be able to reuse vtn_handle_preamble_instruction, or as it is not really needed for this validation, not pass the spirv_to_nir_options and keep a simplified version of such method in order to avoid those vtn_warnings? </blockquote></div> </div><div class="gmail_extra">Just keeping the simplified version is fine with me. I was hoping to save you some typing but didn't know that it would cause problems. </div></div>