On 4 December 2015 at 00:23, Matt Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Emil Velikov <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 3 December 2015 at 22:15, Matt Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Emil Velikov <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Should have been part of commit f53f9eb8d49 "glapi: add GetPointervKHR >>>> to the ES dispatch". >>>> >>>> Note: as the core symbol is present in GLES 1.1 we cannot (should not) >>>> include the KHR one in the es11 table. Add the symbol, commented out, >>>> with description for posterity. >>>> >>>> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93235 >>>> Fixes: f53f9eb8d49 "glapi: add GetPointervKHR to the ES dispatch". >>>> Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> src/mesa/main/tests/dispatch_sanity.cpp | 3 +++ >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/src/mesa/main/tests/dispatch_sanity.cpp >>>> b/src/mesa/main/tests/dispatch_sanity.cpp >>>> index 97f81f9..687c8f3 100644 >>>> --- a/src/mesa/main/tests/dispatch_sanity.cpp >>>> +++ b/src/mesa/main/tests/dispatch_sanity.cpp >>>> @@ -2049,6 +2049,8 @@ const struct function gles11_functions_possible[] = { >>>> { "glGetDebugMessageLogKHR", 11, -1 }, >>>> { "glGetObjectLabelKHR", 11, -1 }, >>>> { "glGetObjectPtrLabelKHR", 11, -1 }, >>>> + // The following clashes with the non KHR definition above >>> >>> We have comments elsewhere like >>> >>> // We check for the aliased -OES version in GLES 2 >>> >>> Can you make the comment match that? >>> >> Slightly confused here. The example is the opposite of that I'm doing here. > > Huh. I'm not sure why. It's just a problem of testing for two > functions that are aliased. > > Whether we test for the "regular" one of the extension one doesn't > matter. All I was saying was "make your comment match the format of > the others noting the same problem elsewhere" > > ... unless I've misunderstood something. > You're spot on. Earlier I've went with the shorter solution - with v2 things are consistent.
>> I'm fine either way just let me know whichever you prefer. >> -Emil > > FWIW, make check still fails for me even with this patch. Do you have a log that I can take a look ? I've `make clean'ed and rebuild a couple of times just in case and things seems to pass here. Thanks Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
