On 26/04/15 00:08, Timothy Arceri wrote: > On Sat, 2015-04-25 at 18:46 +0200, Alejandro Piñeiro wrote: >> There was a typo on commit c0cd5b, doing it when explicit_binding >> was false. This prevented to use any binding point different to 0. >> --- >> >> Taking into account the explanation on the header about the >> variable binding (ast.h:553) >> >> /** >> * Binding specified via GL_ARB_shading_language_420pack's "binding" >> keyword. >> * >> * \note >> * This field is only valid if \c explicit_binding is set. >> */ >> int binding; >> >> The binding is correct (and should be updated) if explicit_binding is true. >> But the current behaviour was updating it if it was false. >> >> This was not detected by piglit because all the calls to >> glBindBufferBase(GL_ATOMIC_COUNTER_BUFFER are using 0. >> >> I tested this patch by running all piglit on my system, and I didn't >> detect regression. I also runned make check without issues. >> >> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90175 > You should probably convert your test program to a piglit test also so > this bug can be detected if it happens again in the future.
There are several piglit tests at spec/arb_shader_atomic_counters testing that you get what you expect while using atomic counters. Probably it would be enough to just modify some of the already existing tests, using a non-zero binding point (for example at semantics.c). But I don't have too much experience tweaking/creating piglit tests. What option would be preferred for this case? A new test or just modify a little one of the already available? Best regards -- Alejandro Piñeiro (apinhe...@igalia.com) _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
