On 16 October 2013 13:50, Ian Romanick <i...@freedesktop.org> wrote: > On 10/16/2013 01:46 PM, Ian Romanick wrote: > > On 10/16/2013 07:43 AM, Paul Berry wrote: > >> On 16 October 2013 00:26, Jordan Justen <jljus...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Also, perhaps we should log a spec bug to ask the spec to clarify this? > >> > >> IMHO, the intent is already clear from the fact that all the > >> redeclaration examples in the spec include the in/out qualifier. The > >> fact that the NVIDIA compiler sometimes misbehaves if in/out is absent > >> seems like adequate confirmation to me. Spec bugs frequently take weeks > >> or months to get resolved, so I guess I'm having trouble convincing > >> myself that it's worth it in this case. > >> > >> Anyone else want to weigh in with an opinion on this? Idr? > > > > I think the spec is already clear, and NVIDIA's implementation is just > > buggy. > > Arg... but let me be clear. It is already explicitly an error to do: > > in vec4 foo; > vec4 foo; > > or > > vec4 foo; > centroid in vec4 foo; > > or > > in vec4 foo; > centroid in vec4 foo; // this one is okay. >
Actually my reading of GLSL 1.50 is that only built-ins can be redeclared for purposes of changing their interpolation qualifiers. So I think this is illegal too. Does that change your opinion? > vec4 foo; // this one is not. > > There is no reason to believe built-in variables should have a different > set of rules. Right? > >
_______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list Piglit@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit