On Thu, 2016-06-30 at 00:29 -0700, Ian Romanick wrote: > On 06/29/2016 05:55 PM, Timothy Arceri wrote: ... > > <insert supporting spec quote??> > > So, I don't think there is a clear part of the spec to quote here, > and > I looked. :) While the spec doesn't come right out and say it, I > think > we can infer that this behavior is correct. It's clear how offsets > will be assigned for arrays: > > * Arrays of type atomic_uint are stored in memory by element > order, > with array element member zero at the lowest offset. The > difference > in offsets between each pair of elements in the array in basic > machine > units is referred to as the array stride, and is constant across > the > entire array. The stride can be queried by calling GetIntegerv > with > a <pname> of UNIFORM_ARRAY_STRIDE after a program is linked. > > From that it is clear how arrays of atomic counters will interact > with > GL_MAX_ATOMIC_COUNTER_BUFFER_SIZE. > > For other kinds of uniforms it's also clear that each entry in an > array > counts against the relevant limits. > > I think this is correct, but you have to rely on inference.
I bumped into the same problem, having to infer the expected behavior to know whether the related CTS test implementation was correct or it was mesa's implementation. I came to the same conclusion. You have put it very well into words in your answer. What about I use your paragraph above to include it into the commit message? Thanks! -- Br, Andres _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
