[Piglit] [PATCH 0/5] Randomized UBO tests of doom

[Dylan Baker]

I seem to remember this, it was nvidia I think, if that helps you look for
the email.

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Ian Romanick <idr at freedesktop.org> wrote:

> There is at least one bigger bug in this series, and fixing it will
> require changes to shader-runner too.  I had some e-mail either from one
> of the guys at VMware or one of the guys at NVIDIA, but I can't find it.
>
> My recollection is that there is some case in the generator (and
> shader-runner in general) that expects non-base elements of arrays to be
> advertised, but the spec says they should not be advertised.  I think
> the case was that for a UBO like
>
> struct S {
>     int i;
>     float f;
> };
>
> uniform U {
>     S s[4];
> };
>
> only s[0].i and s[0].f would be reported, but shader-runner expects all
> elements of s[] to be reported.
>
> This will be annoying to fix because shader-runner relies on this to
> determine the offsets s[1].i and friends.
>
> It should be relatively easy to figure out what the failure case is.  I
> think there's already a test in piglit that misuses the feature, and
> that test fails on NVIDIA's closed-source driver.
>
> On 01/12/2016 03:09 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> > My fixes are one-liners (might just be one, I forget). At this point I
> > would very much like to see *anything* checked in, and we can improve
> > from there.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Dylan Baker <baker.dylan.c at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> That sounds like a plan. Would you like to get Ian's original scripts
> >> merged, and I'll update the cleanups I have for his scripts and send
> them
> >> out?
> >>
> >> Dylan
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Timothy Arceri <t_arceri at yahoo.com.au>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 16:46 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> >>>> Since gravy is so delicious,
> >>>>
> >>>> https://github.com/dcbaker/piglit.git wip/ubo-fuzzer
> >>>>
> >>>> bin/piglit run ubo-fuzzer output
> >>>>
> >>>> Obviously it's not at all feature complete, it's more proof of
> >>>> concept
> >>>> than anything else, but gravy.
> >>>
> >>> Hi Dylan,
> >>>
> >>> I took a quick look at your branch and I'd like to suggest a way
> >>> forward on this.
> >>>
> >>> It looks like you made a bunch of small/fixes tidy ups to Ian's
> >>> scripts, how about we get those sent out for review/comment then commit
> >>> the script to the main piglit repo.
> >>>
> >>> Ilia and I can then rebase our modifications, resend for review and
> >>> commit those.
> >>>
> >>> Then we can worry about gravy once we have all the work in one place.
> >>>
> >>> How does that sound?
> >>>
> >>> Tim
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 03:01 11AM -0500, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> >>>>> That's a full step ahead of my suggestion. I just want the thing in
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> shared place so that I can run it when doing dodgy things to code I
> >>>>> don't understand... if there's some automated process running it,
> >>>>> that's just gravy on top.
> >>>>>
> >>>> [snip]
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Piglit mailing list
> > Piglit at lists.freedesktop.org
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/piglit/attachments/20160113/ebc48790/attachment.html>