Stéphane Marchesin <marc...@chromium.org> writes:
> The current computation for the lastlevel is based on the level size and can
> lead to writing past the end of the texture array. Instead we clamp it by
> MAX_TEXTURE_LEVELS.
> ---
> src/mesa/drivers/dri/intel/intel_tex_image.c | 5 +++++
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/intel/intel_tex_image.c
> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/intel/intel_tex_image.c
> index fe9040c..7ef258b 100644
> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/intel/intel_tex_image.c
> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/intel/intel_tex_image.c
> @@ -88,6 +88,11 @@ intel_miptree_create_for_teximage(struct intel_context
> *intel,
> lastLevel = firstLevel;
> } else {
> lastLevel = firstLevel + _mesa_logbase2(MAX2(MAX2(width, height),
> depth));
> + /* We tried to guess the last level based on the texture size, make
> + * sure we don't go past MAX_TEXTURE_LEVELS since it's hardcoded
> + * in many places.
> + */
> + lastLevel = MIN2(lastLevel, MAX_TEXTURE_LEVELS - 1);
> }
> }I'm confused. MAX_TEXTURE_LEVELS should set such that it covers something from the texture size limits down to 1x1. Does it not?
pgpn25muWReqX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
