[Piglit] [RFC] Proposed changes to shader_runner

[Brian Paul]

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Ian Romanick <idr at freedesktop.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I'm considering making a couple changes to shader_runner, but I want to
> solicit feedback before I do.
>
> I'm finishing up some code for Mesa's new GLSL compiler that does
> processing on loops.  I want to create some additional "tricky" loop
> tests to make sure some of the corner cases are handled correctly.  One
> of the tests has a shader like the one below.  I want to set i1 to 0 and
> i2 to 5.  If the dependency handling is correct, the shader will produce
> green.  If it is not correct, the shader will produce red.
>
> uniform int i1;
> uniform int i2;
> uniform float f;
>
> void main()
> {
>  int c = i1;
>  int i;
>  float o = f;
>
>  i = c;
>  c = i2;
>  while (i < 5) {
>    o += 0.2;
>    i++;
>  }
>
>   gl_FragColor = vec4(1.0 - (o / 2.0), o / 2.0, 0.0, 1.0);
> }
>
> The problem is that the compiler (correctly) optimizes i2 away.  The
> call to glGetUniformLocation in shader_runner fails, and the test
> aborts.  Nvidia's implementation does the same.

So why do you need i2 at all in this example?

If you want to keep i2, you could also force/trick it into not being
optimized away by using it in an expression for the result color
(maybe "gl_Fragcolor.z = i2 - i2" or some other expression).


> I want to change the error check in shader_runner to drop uniforms that
> return -1 from glGetUniformLocation.  The problem is that this error
> check has helped me (and presumably others) catch errors in their tests.
>  Should I change it to emit a warning in the non-auto case?
>
> The other option is to just use the GLSL 1.20 uniform initializer
> syntax, but this won't work with sampler uniforms (when we add texture
> support to shader runner).

You could also add another option to the shader runner config file to
indicate that a uniform might be optimized away and skip the error
check.


> The other change that I want to make, and I know Eric has talked about
> doing this too, is to "ignore" checks for "GL >= 2.0".  When
> shader_runner sees "GL >= 2.0" it will interpret it as a request for
> OpenGL 2.0 or GL_ARB_shader_objects, GL_ARB_vertex_shader, and
> GL_ARB_fragment_shader.  Other than potentially making the code messy, I
> don't see any ill effects of this.
>
> The main upshot is that those few implementations that can do GLSL but
> lack some other OpenGL 2.0 features (i.e., i915 which lack occlusion
> query) can play.
>
> Opinions?

Sounds fine.

-Brian