On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 4:57:14 PM PDT Patrick Baggett wrote:
> Sorry, didn't CC mesa-dev, trying again...
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> > Two dEQP tests expect INVALID_VALUE errors for negative width/height
> > parameters, but get INVALID_OPERATION because they
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On Monday, June 13, 2016 2:19:36 PM PDT Anuj Phogat wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Kenneth Graunke
>> wrote:
>> > Two dEQP tests expect INVALID_VALUE errors for negative width/height
>> > parameters, but get INVALID_OPERATION b
On Monday, June 13, 2016 2:19:36 PM PDT Anuj Phogat wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> > Two dEQP tests expect INVALID_VALUE errors for negative width/height
> > parameters, but get INVALID_OPERATION because they haven't actually
> > created a destination image. Thi
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> Two dEQP tests expect INVALID_VALUE errors for negative width/height
> parameters, but get INVALID_OPERATION because they haven't actually
> created a destination image. This is arguably not a bug in Mesa, as
> there's no specified ordering
Sorry, didn't CC mesa-dev, trying again...
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> Two dEQP tests expect INVALID_VALUE errors for negative width/height
> parameters, but get INVALID_OPERATION because they haven't actually
> created a destination image. This is arguably not a bug
Two dEQP tests expect INVALID_VALUE errors for negative width/height
parameters, but get INVALID_OPERATION because they haven't actually
created a destination image. This is arguably not a bug in Mesa, as
there's no specified ordering of error conditions.
However, it's also really easy to make th
