On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Marek Olšák <[email protected]> wrote: > If I'm reading the grammar correctly, the constant offset must be in > the range [-64, 63]: > > <addrRegRelOffset> ::= "" > | "+" <addrRegPosOffset> > | "-" <addrRegNegOffset> > > <addrRegPosOffset> ::= <integer> from 0 to 63 > > <addrRegNegOffset> ::= <integer> from 0 to 64 > > However, proprietary drivers allow a greater range than that and there > is at least one app which doesn't work if we obey the spec, so I > decided to bump the relative address offset limits long time ago and > the test has been failing ever since. The way I see it, the piglit > test should be removed, because it's not useful anymore.
ok, so I was missing something. I also agree that the test should be removed if there isn't any intention of following the spec. > Marek > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Martin Andersson <[email protected]> wrote: >> The asmparsertest/shaders/ARBvp1.0/address-06.txt tests against >> "constant array index offset too large" and expects it to fail. >> Currently in mesa this does not cause the program to fail and based on >> my reading of [1] this is the correct behaviour. The test uses >> relative addressing for which out-of-bounds access is undefined, but >> it does not say that the program should fail to load as it says about >> out-of-bounds access with absolute addressing [1]. >> >> Section 2.14.4.2 >> <snip> >> "If the computed offset is negative or exceeds the size of the array, >> the results of the access are undefined, but may not lead to program >> or GL termination." >> >> I think the test should be expected to pass, or am I missing something? >> >> //Martin >> >> [1] http://www.opengl.org/registry/specs/ARB/vertex_program.txt >> _______________________________________________ >> Piglit mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
