On 12/01/2016 12:59 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:50 AM, Tapani Pälli wrote:
On 12/01/2016 12:19 PM, Tapani Pälli wrote:
On 12/01/2016 12:04 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
We were previously also verifying that no backing buffers were available
when an array wasn't enabled. T
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:50 AM, Tapani Pälli wrote:
>
>
> On 12/01/2016 12:19 PM, Tapani Pälli wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/01/2016 12:04 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>>
>>> We were previously also verifying that no backing buffers were available
>>> when an array wasn't enabled. This is has no basis in the s
On 12/01/2016 12:19 PM, Tapani Pälli wrote:
On 12/01/2016 12:04 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
We were previously also verifying that no backing buffers were available
when an array wasn't enabled. This is has no basis in the spec, and it
causes GLupeN64 to fail as a result.
I'm a bit puzzled about
On 12/01/2016 12:04 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
We were previously also verifying that no backing buffers were available
when an array wasn't enabled. This is has no basis in the spec, and it
causes GLupeN64 to fail as a result.
I'm a bit puzzled about the API usage here, is the app attempting to
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> We were previously also verifying that no backing buffers were available
> when an array wasn't enabled. This is has no basis in the spec, and it
> causes GLupeN64 to fail as a result.
>
> Fixes: c2e146f487 ("mesa: error out in indirect draw wh
We were previously also verifying that no backing buffers were available
when an array wasn't enabled. This is has no basis in the spec, and it
causes GLupeN64 to fail as a result.
Fixes: c2e146f487 ("mesa: error out in indirect draw when vertex bindings
mismatch")
Cc: mesa-sta...@lists.freedeskt
