On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 16:28 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 1 November 2015 at 22:03, Timothy Arceri > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 15:34 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: > > > From: Emil Velikov <[email protected]> > > > > > > Check if one member is (attempted to be) positioned on top of another, > > > and that the assigned offset(s) increase naturally. > > > > > > v2: > > > - Fix typo - enhanced-layout > enhanced-layouts > > > - Prefix uniform tests with ubo > > > - Add ssbo equivalent tests > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > .../explicit-offsets/ssbo-decreasing-offset.vert | 29 > > > +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > .../ssbo-members-stamping-each-other.vert | 30 > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > .../ssbo-multiple-members-same-offset.vert | 30 > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > .../explicit-offsets/ubo-decreasing-offset.vert | 27 > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > > > .../ubo-members-stamping-each-other.vert | 29 > > > +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > .../ubo-multiple-members-same-offset.vert | 29 > > > +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 6 files changed, 174 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 tests/spec/arb_enhanced_layouts/compiler/explicit > > > -offsets/ssbo-decreasing-offset.vert > > > create mode 100644 tests/spec/arb_enhanced_layouts/compiler/explicit > > > -offsets/ssbo-members-stamping-each-other.vert > > > create mode 100644 tests/spec/arb_enhanced_layouts/compiler/explicit > > > -offsets/ssbo-multiple-members-same-offset.vert > > > create mode 100644 tests/spec/arb_enhanced_layouts/compiler/explicit > > > -offsets/ubo-decreasing-offset.vert > > > create mode 100644 tests/spec/arb_enhanced_layouts/compiler/explicit > > > -offsets/ubo-members-stamping-each-other.vert > > > create mode 100644 tests/spec/arb_enhanced_layouts/compiler/explicit > > > -offsets/ubo-multiple-members-same-offset.vert > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/spec/arb_enhanced_layouts/compiler/explicit > > > -offsets/ssbo > > > -decreasing-offset.vert > > > b/tests/spec/arb_enhanced_layouts/compiler/explicit > > > -offsets/ssbo-decreasing-offset.vert > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000..ba3678a > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/tests/spec/arb_enhanced_layouts/compiler/explicit-offsets/ssbo > > > -decreasing-offset.vert > > > @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ > > > +// [config] > > > +// expect_result: fail > > > +// glsl_version: 4.30 > > > +// require_extensions: GL_ARB_enhanced_layouts > > > GL_ARB_shader_storage_buffer_object > > > +// check_link: false > > > +// [end config] > > > +// > > > +// ARB_enhanced_layouts spec says: > > > +// "It is a compile-time error to > > > +// specify an *offset* that is smaller than the offset of the > > > previous > > > +// member in the block..." > > > +// > > > +// Tests whether assigning a smaller offset for sequential member > > > triggers > > > +// a compile-time error. > > > +// > > > + > > > +#version 430 > > > +#extension GL_ARB_enhanced_layouts : enable > > > +#extension GL_ARB_shader_storage_buffer_object : enable > > > + > > > + > > > +layout(std430) buffer b { > > > + layout(offset = 32) vec4 var1; > > > + layout(offset = 0) vec4 var2; // Wrong: offset but be larger > > > than > > > one of previous member > > > > "offset must be larger than that of a previous member" ? > > > This sounds a lot better. > > ... > > > +// Tests whether assigning the same offsets for multiple members > > > trigger > > > +// a compile-time error. > > > +// XXX: fuzz for other (all?) types ? > > > > Remove the XXX comment? Once this is commited its highly unlikely anyone > > will > > notice it or care. > > > It's meant to inspire some input during the review stage. And see how > deeply people read through the test ;-) > Will drop the comment. > ... > > > +// Tests whether assigning the same offsets for multiple members > > > trigger > > > +// a compile-time error. > > > +// Note: not explicitly mentioned in the spec. > > > > You can remove the "Note" as the spec covers this with "that lies within > > the > > previous member of the block" right? > > > Keyword here is "explicit" - the spec covers overlapping members in > ''generic' way without going into details about this case :-) Which > makes we wonder - should we even bother with this (and the ssbo) test > ?
I would leave them they don't hurt, up to you. > > Thanks > Emil _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
