On 06/30/2016 12:50 AM, Andres Gomez wrote: > 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?
Sounds good to me. > Thanks! _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
