On 30/07/18 11:23, Neil Roberts wrote: > Timothy Arceri <tarc...@itsqueeze.com> writes: > >>> + >>> + int last_vert_stage = >>> + util_last_bit(prog->data->linked_stages & >>> + (((1 << (MESA_SHADER_GEOMETRY + 1)) - 1) ^ >>> + ((1 << MESA_SHADER_VERTEX) - 1))); >> Isn't this the same as: >> >> int last_vert_stage = >> util_last_bit(prog->data->linked_stages & >> ((1 << (MESA_SHADER_GEOMETRY + 1)) - 1)); >> >> As ((1 << MESA_SHADER_VERTEX) - 1)) == 0 >> >> If you use the above simplification this patch is: >> >> Reviewed-by: Timothy Arceri <tarc...@itsqueeze.com> > This is based on code in link_varyings_and_uniforms which has a loop > over all of the stages from geometry down to vertex to try and find the > last vertex stage. I was trying to mimic this behaviour which is > presumably saying vertex->geometry are the vertex stages and not just > “anything up to and including geometry”. > > I don’t really mind either way whether we include the MESA_SHADER_VERTEX > part or not. I guess the cleanest way could be to add a define for the > mask in shader_enums.h to make it most likely not to break if any more > stages are added. But seeing as there is precedent for having this range > be open-coded in the code I guess we can just leave that to another > patch.
Yes, I think that for now is more pragmatic to just go ahead with Timothy's suggestion. I already made the change locally. BR
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
