On 21/08/15 17:47, Martin Peres wrote:
On 21/08/15 16:52, Francisco Jerez wrote:
The commit message should be prefixed "glsl:", this fix isn't
i965-specific.
Ilia just warned me on IRC that I completely missed this comment...
I guess the top-posting threw me off (even if it was entirely
ju
On 21/08/15 16:52, Francisco Jerez wrote:
The commit message should be prefixed "glsl:", this fix isn't
i965-specific.
Martin Peres writes:
This got missed because the piglit test only tested int images to avoid a
combinatiorial explosion of format, targets, stages and sizes which
takes mor
The commit message should be prefixed "glsl:", this fix isn't
i965-specific.
Martin Peres writes:
> This got missed because the piglit test only tested int images to avoid a
> combinatiorial explosion of format, targets, stages and sizes which
> takes more than 5 minutes to test on nvidia's dri
This got missed because the piglit test only tested int images to avoid a
combinatiorial explosion of format, targets, stages and sizes which
takes more than 5 minutes to test on nvidia's driver.
This patch also drops the IMAGE_FUNCTION_AVAIL_ATOMIC which is not applicable
to the image_size codepa
