On 2015-11-10 2:08, Ian Romanick wrote:
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.
I am "some guys" (or at least one of them). IIRC, the bug was in
shader-runner, not in your fuzzer per se, and got fixed in
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/piglit/commit/?id=2b94faec18dc1f8f0d9241ec731408959320cd7c
I don't recall finding other bugs, there was one in the NVIDIA driver
that it exposed and we fixed it. (Thanks!)
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.
I think it makes sense to only store the tests that are, or used to be,
red, and not store the tests that always passed everywhere, as these
bring no particular value.
--
Greetings,
A. Huillet
NVIDIA Linux graphics
_______________________________________________
Piglit mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
