Re: [Piglit] [PATCH 0/5] Randomized UBO tests of doom

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

Re: [Piglit] [PATCH 0/5] Randomized UBO tests of doom

I seem to remember this, it was nvidia I think, if that helps you look for the email. On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Ian Romanick 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

Re: [Piglit] [PATCH 0/5] Randomized UBO tests of doom

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

Re: [Piglit] [PATCH 0/5] Randomized UBO tests of doom

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

Re: [Piglit] [PATCH 0/5] Randomized UBO tests of doom

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 wrote: > On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 16:46 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote: > >

Re: [Piglit] [PATCH 0/5] Randomized UBO tests of doom

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 wrote: > That sounds like a plan. Would you like to get Ian's original

Re: [Piglit] [PATCH 0/5] Randomized UBO tests of doom

That is the plan I think? Timothy will merge Ian's scripts, and then we can rebase cleanups and send them out for review? On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > My fixes are one-liners (might just be one, I forget). At this point I > would very much like to

Re: [Piglit] [PATCH 0/5] Randomized UBO tests of doom

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. On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Dylan Baker

Re: [Piglit] [PATCH 0/5] Randomized UBO tests of doom

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 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

Re: [Piglit] [PATCH 0/5] Randomized UBO tests of doom

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Ian Romanick 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 >>

Re: [Piglit] [PATCH 0/5] Randomized UBO tests of doom

Why don't we make a ubo-fuzzing profile that Sandra the rest as part of the output? If be happy to do that if others think it's useful On Nov 9, 2015 05:19, "Ilia Mirkin" wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Ian Romanick wrote: > > On 09/24/2014

Re: [Piglit] [PATCH 0/5] Randomized UBO tests of doom

Here's my idea. We add ubo-fuzzer as a profile. We generate each test file on demand, and write it out to a temporary file before running it. Then if the test fails we can record the test into the results file for the developer to come back and look at later to decide if it's worth keeping. Does

Re: [Piglit] [PATCH 0/5] Randomized UBO tests of doom

On 11/09/2015 05:19 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Ian Romanick 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

Re: [Piglit] [PATCH 0/5] Randomized UBO tests of doom

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

[Piglit] [PATCH 0/5] Randomized UBO tests of doom

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

Re: [Piglit] [PATCH 0/5] Randomized UBO tests of doom

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Ian Romanick i...@freedesktop.org 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

Re: [Piglit] [PATCH 0/5] Randomized UBO tests of doom

On 09/24/2014 10:24 AM, Matt Turner wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Ian Romanick i...@freedesktop.org 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