On 01/13/2016 01:34 PM, Dylan Baker wrote: > I seem to remember this, it was nvidia I think, if that helps you look > for the email.
Looking at old messages in the thread... it looks like this was fixed in shader-runner in http://cgit.freedesktop.org/piglit/commit/?id=2b94faec18dc1f8f0d9241ec731408959320cd7c. > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Ian Romanick <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > There is at least one bigger bug in this series, and fixing it will > require changes to shader-runner too. I had some e-mail either from one > of the guys at VMware or one of the guys at NVIDIA, but I can't find it. > > My recollection is that there is some case in the generator (and > shader-runner in general) that expects non-base elements of arrays to be > advertised, but the spec says they should not be advertised. I think > the case was that for a UBO like > > struct S { > int i; > float f; > }; > > uniform U { > S s[4]; > }; > > only s[0].i and s[0].f would be reported, but shader-runner expects all > elements of s[] to be reported. > > This will be annoying to fix because shader-runner relies on this to > determine the offsets s[1].i and friends. > > It should be relatively easy to figure out what the failure case is. I > think there's already a test in piglit that misuses the feature, and > that test fails on NVIDIA's closed-source driver. > > On 01/12/2016 03:09 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > > My fixes are one-liners (might just be one, I forget). At this point I > > would very much like to see *anything* checked in, and we can improve > > from there. > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Dylan Baker > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> That sounds like a plan. Would you like to get Ian's original scripts > >> merged, and I'll update the cleanups I have for his scripts and > send them > >> out? > >> > >> Dylan > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Timothy Arceri > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 16:46 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote: > >>>> Since gravy is so delicious, > >>>> > >>>> https://github.com/dcbaker/piglit.git wip/ubo-fuzzer > >>>> > >>>> bin/piglit run ubo-fuzzer output > >>>> > >>>> Obviously it's not at all feature complete, it's more proof of > >>>> concept > >>>> than anything else, but gravy. > >>> > >>> Hi Dylan, > >>> > >>> I took a quick look at your branch and I'd like to suggest a way > >>> forward on this. > >>> > >>> It looks like you made a bunch of small/fixes tidy ups to Ian's > >>> scripts, how about we get those sent out for review/comment then > commit > >>> the script to the main piglit repo. > >>> > >>> Ilia and I can then rebase our modifications, resend for review and > >>> commit those. > >>> > >>> Then we can worry about gravy once we have all the work in one > place. > >>> > >>> How does that sound? > >>> > >>> Tim > >>> > >>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 03:01 11AM -0500, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > >>>>> That's a full step ahead of my suggestion. I just want the > thing in > >>>>> a > >>>>> shared place so that I can run it when doing dodgy things to > code I > >>>>> don't understand... if there's some automated process running it, > >>>>> that's just gravy on top. > >>>>> > >>>> [snip] > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Piglit mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit > > _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
