On 11/09/2015 05:19 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Ian Romanick <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 09/24/2014 09:47 AM, Ian Romanick wrote: >>> So, here it is. Finally. >>> >>> The first two patches provide the infrastructure for generating >>> randomized UBO tests. I think these are pretty solid, but there are >>> probably ways to impove the Python, etc. >>> >>> The remaining three patches are examples of ways the infrastructure can >>> be used. Here is where I am not sure what we should do. I know that we >>> don't want to make the "forever" test in patch 4 part of regular piglit >>> runs. However, it has found a LOT of bugs in EVERY OpenGL driver that I >>> have tested. >>> >>> I'm also unsure about the random tests generated by patch 3. Do we want >>> actual random tests in regular piglit runs? What do we do for tests for >>> GLSL 1.40? Generate the "same" tests, but use #version 140 instead of >>> #extension? >>> >>> In any case, I know that folks are hard at work on fp64 support, so >>> using the various random runners here should help that effort. Sorry >>> for all the delays. >>> >>> One last thing... I'm presenting a bunch of information about this work >>> at XDC in a couple weeks. Maybe we want to wait to hammer out the more >>> difficult details until then. Dunno. >> >> I've pushed updated version of this series to the ubo-lolz branch of my >> fd.o piglit repo. > > It looks like this didn't end up going anywhere... on several > occasions I've either used this script (like for fp64), or recommended > it to others (like for ssbo, and will do so for ARB_enhanced_layouts > when that conversation comes up). > > I think it'd benefit greatly from being in a shared and updated > location as features are added, bugs are fixed, etc. However running > it as part of piglit may not be a great idea. Perhaps we can find a > place in the repo where we can store it? Or maybe even a different > repo? > > How about tests/fuzzing in piglit? Any objections?
Having it actually live somewhere is a good idea. There are definitely some bugs in it... and some of the tests that failed on other implementations may be expecting things the spec doesn't allow. I need to dig back through my e-mail, but some guys from NVIDIA had convinced me that there was something wrong... but I don't recall what. When I presented this at XDC in 2014, I think the consensus was that tests that actually found a bug should be added to the "right" place in the repo, but we don't want to run 47,000,000 random tests on regular piglit runs. Someone should have a system somewhere that just runs these (and other) random, fuzzing tests 24/7. > Cheers, > > -ilia _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
