On 11/19/2013 01:16 AM, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Paul Berry wrote:
>> On 17 November 2013 00:24, Victor Luchitz wrote:
>>> If compiler actually attempted to unroll the loop above, it would notice
>>> that the does compile correctly. Instead it just emits and error
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Paul Berry wrote:
> On 17 November 2013 00:24, Victor Luchitz wrote:
>> If compiler actually attempted to unroll the loop above, it would notice
>> that the does compile correctly. Instead it just emits and error and in my
>> opinion, contradicts the comment above
Hello Paul,
thank you for the explanation. I thought that relaxing the spec conformance
in this particular harmless case would be beneficial both to programmers
and users. I understand and accept your reasoning even though deep in my
heart I feel that by-the-book conformance is overly dogmatic.
G
On 17 November 2013 00:24, Victor Luchitz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> in my opinion GLSL compiler in mesa is too restrictive when it comes to
> sampler arrays. The following code can not be compiled due to the "sampler
> arrays indexed with non-constant expressions is forbidden in GLSL 1.30 and
> later":
Hello,
in my opinion GLSL compiler in mesa is too restrictive when it comes to
sampler arrays. The following code can not be compiled due to the "sampler
arrays indexed with non-constant expressions is forbidden in GLSL 1.30 and
later":
#define MAX_SHADOWS 2
varying vec4 v_ShadowProjVector[MAX_S
