On 08/28/2018 12:09 PM, Rogovin, Kevin wrote: > Hi, > >> Is that tested? > > I have tested it in a simple shader test I made (i.e. not in a dedicated test > suite such as dEQP, piglit or something else). The created assembly is > identical. The specific example is a shader where I replace calls of > beginFragmentShaderOrderingINTEL() with beginInvocationInterlockARB() and the > created assembly is the same. Running with INTEL_DEBUG=fs produced identical > output except the SSA NIR had the different opcode. AFAIK, the current Mesa > implementation of the ARB extension does not in any way shape or form enforce > any of "no control flow", "only once and only in main" requirements. Indeed, > Mesa happily accepts code even without the endInvocationInterlockARB() call > as well. Personally, I am happy that it is more accepting rather than > rejecting the code.
That's actually terrible and needs to be fixed ASAP. That's how we end up with the "it works on <some vendor>" rubbish that has basically ruined GLSL. > -Kevin > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev > _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
