Mea culpa, You're right. -----Original Message----- From: Landwerlin, Lionel G Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 3:46 PM To: Olender, Sebastian D <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Piglit] [PATCH 3/3] arb_cull_distance: correction of result interpretation
On 10/01/17 14:38, Sebastian Olender wrote: > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Olender <[email protected]> > --- > tests/spec/arb_cull_distance/exceed-limits.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/spec/arb_cull_distance/exceed-limits.c > b/tests/spec/arb_cull_distance/exceed-limits.c > index 10fecb9..e68ad73 100644 > --- a/tests/spec/arb_cull_distance/exceed-limits.c > +++ b/tests/spec/arb_cull_distance/exceed-limits.c > @@ -58,8 +58,8 @@ piglit_init(int argc, char **argv) > GLint max_clip_distances; > GLint max_cull_distances; > GLint max_combined_clip_and_cull_distances; > - GLint clip_distances; > - GLint cull_distances; > + GLint clip_distances = 0; > + GLint cull_distances = 0; > char *use_cull = "", *use_clip = ""; > > glGetIntegerv(GL_MAX_CLIP_DISTANCES, &max_clip_distances); @@ > -104,7 +104,7 @@ piglit_init(int argc, char **argv) Hi Sebastian, I think you missed that the purpose of this test is to verify that when exceeding the limit the compilation must fail. The changes below seem incorrect to me. Initializing the values above is fine though. Thanks - Lionel > > glLinkProgram(prog); > if (!piglit_link_check_status(prog)) > - piglit_report_result(PIGLIT_PASS); > + piglit_report_result(PIGLIT_FAIL); > > - piglit_report_result(PIGLIT_FAIL); > + piglit_report_result(PIGLIT_PASS); > } _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
