Ah I totally missed that it's queryable! So I guess this is a test bug then. (Interestingly, the spec doesn't quite tell what happens in the case if a buffer's size isn't sufficiently aligned - if the offset is not sufficiently aligned an error is generated but not if the size isn't. The state table clearly tell though UNIFORM_BUFFER_OFFSET_ALIGNMENT is for both offset and size.)
Roland Am 18.04.2015 um 12:03 schrieb Marek Olšák: > Hi Roland, > > GL_UNIFORM_BUFFER_OFFSET_ALIGNMENT or > PIPE_CAP_CONSTANT_BUFFER_OFFSET_ALIGNMENT is what you're looking for. > I guess the test shouldn't ignore that. The value is 256 for R600 and > 4 for GCN. > > Marek > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Roland Scheidegger <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> when looking at a regression (piglit >> ext_transform_feedback-immediate-reuse-uniform-buffer, bug 90081) I >> realized that behavior wrt non-size-aligned constant buffers doesn't >> seem to be all that clear cut. In particular I'm wondering if what the >> test (or rather the state tracker) does is actually ok? >> Constant buffers were always really considered to have been consisting >> of vec4 of floats (they are accessed with xyzw semantics after all), >> hence having a constant buffer with a size not a multiple of 16 bytes >> seems rather odd. I wonder though if they need to be handled gracefully >> somehow (of course, in usual GL fashion, nobody has any idea that this >> spiffy 4-byte transform feedback or whatever different bind point buffer >> is going to be used as a constant buffer later), or if this is something >> which should be addressed elsewhere. >> >> Roland _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
