[Piglit] [PATCH] glsl-1.10: add a 'initialization-incompatible-type-propagation' test

[Timothy Arceri]

On 16/8/18 12:23 am, Danylo Piliaiev wrote:
> This tests the case when initialising with incompatible type
> changed a type of the variable being initialized.
> 
> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107547
> 
> Signed-off-by: Danylo Piliaiev <danylo.piliaiev at globallogic.com>
> ---
> I'm not sure if it's a proper way to test this. The compilation is intended to
> fail but the difference is in the error messages. The correct message is an
> error in initialization line and no errors in accessing to the variables,
> incorrect - additional errors where variables are accessed.
> At the moment it tests only that compiler wouldn't crash which happened
> in the mentioned bug and fix proposed in
> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/48256/
> 
>   ...ization-incompatible-type-propagation.frag | 27 +++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 tests/spec/glsl-1.10/compiler/initialization-incompatible-type-propagation.frag
> 
> diff --git a/tests/spec/glsl-1.10/compiler/initialization-incompatible-type-propagation.frag b/tests/spec/glsl-1.10/compiler/initialization-incompatible-type-propagation.frag
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..0a1873489
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tests/spec/glsl-1.10/compiler/initialization-incompatible-type-propagation.frag
> @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
> +// [config]
> +// expect_result: fail
> +// glsl_version: 1.10
> +// [end config]
> +//
> +// Initializing a variable using the variable with a wrong type
> +// should not affect the type of the variable being initialized.
> +// At least it should not crash, see bug:
> +// https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107547
> +//
> +// From section 5.8 of the GLSL 1.10 spec:
> +//     The assignment operator stores the value of expression into lvalue.
> +//     It will compile only if expression and lvalue have the same type.
> +
> +#version 110
> +
> +uniform struct {
> +        float field;
> +} data;
> +
> +int f() {
> +    vec4 a = vec2(0.0);
> +    a.w -= 1.0; > +
> +    vec2 b = data;
> +    b.x -= 1.0;

This looks like it should be split into two different tests. Is there 
any reason you included both tests together?

> +}
>