On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Eric Anholt <[email protected]> wrote: > Ilia Mirkin <[email protected]> writes: > >> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Ilia Mirkin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> This causes an assert failure in mesa and it doesn't seem like this test >>> is designed for depth/stencil formats. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ilia Mirkin <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> >>> Ian, I know you're rewriting half these tests... feel free to fold this >>> into your series if you like. >>> >>> tests/spec/arb_direct_state_access/gettextureimage-formats.c | 3 ++- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/tests/spec/arb_direct_state_access/gettextureimage-formats.c >>> b/tests/spec/arb_direct_state_access/gettextureimage-formats.c >>> index e2d637c..ce25205 100644 >>> --- a/tests/spec/arb_direct_state_access/gettextureimage-formats.c >>> +++ b/tests/spec/arb_direct_state_access/gettextureimage-formats.c >>> @@ -462,7 +462,8 @@ supported_format_set(const struct test_desc *set) >>> set->format == ext_packed_depth_stencil || >>> set->format == arb_texture_rg_int || >>> set->format == arb_depth_texture || >>> - set->format == arb_depth_buffer_float) { >>> + set->format == arb_depth_buffer_float || >>> + set->format == arb_texture_stencil8) { >>> /* >>> * texture_integer requires a fragment shader, different >>> * glTexImage calls. Depth/stencil formats not implemented. >>> -- >>> 2.3.6 >>> >> >> I recently got a conflict while rebasing this which reminded me that I >> still hadn't pushed this... any objections? > > If we've got a test triggering a Mesa assertion, and this is the only > test doing so, making the test just not trigger the assertion seems bad.
But the test isn't supposed to test stencil formats in the first place (see comment in the context). -ilia _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
