On 29/11/16 02:38, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-11-28 at 08:38 -0200, Alejandro Piñeiro wrote:
>> On 26/11/16 21:31, Timothy Arceri wrote:
>>> 07fe2d565b introduced a big hack in order to return
>>> NumSubroutineUniforms when querying ACTIVE_RESOURCES for
>>> _SUBROUTINE_UNIFORM interfaces.
On Mon, 2016-11-28 at 08:38 -0200, Alejandro Piñeiro wrote:
> On 26/11/16 21:31, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> >
> > 07fe2d565b introduced a big hack in order to return
> > NumSubroutineUniforms when querying ACTIVE_RESOURCES for
> > _SUBROUTINE_UNIFORM interfaces.
>
> I wouldn't call that a big hack,
On 11/28/2016 12:38 PM, Alejandro Piñeiro wrote:
On 26/11/16 21:31, Timothy Arceri wrote:
07fe2d565b introduced a big hack in order to return
NumSubroutineUniforms when querying ACTIVE_RESOURCES for
_SUBROUTINE_UNIFORM interfaces.
I wouldn't call that a big hack, but obviously I'm biased.
On 26/11/16 21:31, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> 07fe2d565b introduced a big hack in order to return
> NumSubroutineUniforms when querying ACTIVE_RESOURCES for
> _SUBROUTINE_UNIFORM interfaces.
I wouldn't call that a big hack, but obviously I'm biased.
> However this is the
> wrong fix we are meant to
07fe2d565b introduced a big hack in order to return
NumSubroutineUniforms when querying ACTIVE_RESOURCES for
_SUBROUTINE_UNIFORM interfaces. However this is the
wrong fix we are meant to be returning the number of active
resources i.e. the count of subroutine uniforms in the
resource list which is