On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaeh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 06.06.2016 23:58, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaeh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 05.06.2016 08:24, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> In the case where we can't guess the base level size, just use the first >>>> image's dims. The width0/height0/depth0 on stObj may not have been set >>>> at this point. Observed in a trace that set up levels 2..9 of a 2d >>>> texture, >>>> and set the base level to 2, with height 1. This made the guess logic >>>> always bail. >>> >>> >>> >>> So by coincidence, I've been digging around this code today as well, >>> though >>> I think the issues we were looking at are unrelated. >>> >>> I'm a bit confused. As far as I understand the code, the allocated pipe >>> texture always has levels corresponding to the GL texture (ignoring >>> texture >>> views, at least...). So in the described situation, BaseLevel == 2, >>> stObj->lastLevel == 9, and we allocate a 10-level texture object. >>> >>> The pipe texture dimensions should be the dimensions of a hypothetical >>> level >>> 0, but with your change they will end up being the dimension of the GL >>> level >>> 2, leading to a texture that is too small? How does this work? >>> >>> I agree though that the current code can't be correct either... >> >> >> Well, since it's *hypothetical*, I was kinda hoping everything would >> work out starting from firstImage and ignore the hypothetical higher >> levels. However perhaps that hope isn't rooted in reality, and is the >> reason why the test fails. > > > I mean, aren't the level sizes wrong? > > E.g. the program sets GL texture level 2 to 128x1, level 3 to 64x1, etc. Now > the pipe texture width0 should be 512 and the height0 should be 1, but will > end up being 128 and 1, respectively.
I had hoped there'd be something that made firstImage be level 0. I guess I was wrong. > >>> >>> Perhaps guess_base_level_size shouldn't bail on dim == 1 in the first >>> place? >> >> >> Well, it'll bail for *some* cases, so we might as well make it work. I >> think this was to avoid the situation where you end up over-guessing >> for a narrow image, such as this one, which only ever has height 1, >> but width up to 512. If we had started guessing at the 1x1 level, we'd >> come up with 512x512. > > > Yeah, I guess there is an argument in favor of bailing in this case when > called from guess_and_alloc_texture. > > But when called from st_finalize_texture, I think it should just do > > width = width > 1 ? width << level : 1; > > etc. Does that fix the test? Unfortunately I don't really have time to do much more than email right now. Feel free to investigate :) -ilia _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
