On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 11:05 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote: > On Sat, 2016-10-22 at 23:42 +0300, Andres Gomez wrote: > > We already had tests for a repeated layout-qualifier-name in a single > > layout-qualifier. Now, we also add similar tests to check across > > multiple layout-qualifiers in the same declaration. > > > > From the ARB_enhanced_layouts spec: > > > > "More than one layout qualifier may appear in a single > > declaration. > > Additionally, the same layout-qualifier-name can occur multiple > > times > > within a layout qualifier or across multiple layout qualifiers > > in the > > same declaration" > > > I believe this is just because the spec is written against the GLSL > 4.30 spec. I'm not so sure that enhanced layouts should add this > support. Did you test the Nvidia and Amd binary drivers to see what > they do?
I run the tests with the proprietary drivers in a GNU/Linux box. NVidia and AMD are a mess with respect to this. Some pass, some not. My conclusion is that their implementation depends on the specific layout-qualifier-name tested. Therefore, if with, let's say max_vertices, they don't allow duplicates with different values, they will fail in all the cases; with duplicates in a single layout- qualifier or among several in the same declaration, no matter if ARB_shading_language_420pack or ARB_enhanced_layouts are supported. If duplicates with different values are allowed for the layout- qualifier-name tested, then the ones failing will be the negative tests. A mess ... Let's drop this by now. It is always easy to add more tests later. > Also I believe we should already have negative tests for this so some > of these tests are likely duplicates of existing tests, > probably ARB_shading_language_420pack tests. Oh, right, it is stupid to test for the absence in 2 different places. Good catch. -- Br, Andres _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list Piglit@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit