On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Guo, Johney <[email protected]> wrote: > The conformance test expected link error, Am I wrong ? > > In the file of > conform\cts\gl_cts\GTF\GL3Tests\fragment_coord_conventions\fragment_coord_conventions_32_multishader_error_1.test > > <shader > name="redeclaration_with_no_layout_qualifiers_and_no_redeclaration_but_use" > expecterror="true"> > <version api="GL">150 core</version> > <version api="GLES30">300 es</version> > <vertshader>fragment_coord_conventions_32_default.vert</vertshader> > > <fragshader>fragment_coord_conventions_32_redeclaration_with_no_layout_qualifiers.frag</fragshader> > > <fragshader>fragment_coord_conventions_32_no_redeclaration_but_use.frag</fragshader> > </shader> > > You're right. It got changed after I added the test. See Khronos Bug#12957. Seems like people agreed on this change. In that case your patch is: Reviewed-by: Anuj Phogat <[email protected]>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Anuj Phogat [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2015 11:22 AM > To: Matt Turner > Cc: Guo, Johney; [email protected]; Jordan Justen; Chris Forbes; > Lin, Qun; Ian Romanick > Subject: Re: [Piglit] [PATCH] > tests/spec/glsl-1.50/execution/fragcoord-layout-qualifiers-conflicting-case-7.shader_test > conflict with spec > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Matt Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Guo, Johney <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> According to spec, this test should expected to error instead of success. > I had a discussion with Ian when I added this test to piglit and khronos > conformance. We concluded that spec restriction shouldn't apply to a case > when you redeclare without any layout qualifiers because it matches the > default declaration of gl_FragCoord. NVIDIA proprietary linux driver also > allows the test to link. Making this case fail to link might break some > application making this harmless mistake. > > >>> The behavior is different with Khronos conformance test >>> GL44-CTS.gtf32.GL3Tests.fragment_coord_conventions.fragment_coord_conventions_32_multishader_error_1 >>> ( subcase >>> redeclaration_with_no_layout_qualifiers_and_no_redeclaration_but_use). > Conformance test behavior matches the piglit test behavior. > >>> >>> * "If gl_FragCoord is redeclared in any fragment shader in a program, >>> * it must be redeclared in all the fragment shaders in that program >>> * that have a static use gl_FragCoord. All redeclarations of >>> * gl_FragCoord in all fragment shaders in a single program must have >>> * the same set of qualifiers." >>> >>> Please check it. >>> --- >>> >>> diff --git >>> a/tests/spec/glsl-1.50/execution/fragcoord-layout-qualifiers-conflict >>> ing-case-7.shader_test >>> b/tests/spec/glsl-1.50/execution/fragcoord-layout-qualifiers-conflict >>> ing-case-7.shader_test >>> index 13605b4..201c75d 100644 >>> --- >>> a/tests/spec/glsl-1.50/execution/fragcoord-layout-qualifiers-conflict >>> ing-case-7.shader_test >>> +++ b/tests/spec/glsl-1.50/execution/fragcoord-layout-qualifiers-conf >>> +++ licting-case-7.shader_test >>> @@ -48,4 +48,4 @@ void alpha() >>> >>> >>> [test] >>> -link success >>> +link error >> >> If you make this change, you should update the comment above the >> [require] section as well. >> >> I think I'd have to agree with your interpretation. It seems like "If >> gl_FragCoord is redeclared in any fragment shader in a program, it >> must be redeclared in all the fragment shaders in that program that >> have a static use [of] gl_FragCoord." is pretty clear that this case >> should fail to link. >> >> Anuj, Jordan, Chris? _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
