On Sun, 2017-03-26 at 21:08 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> Ok. So lets start again. :)
...
> With those this is:
>
> Reviewed-by: Timothy Arceri
I'll apply the changes.
Thanks a lot for your patience during the reviewing process ☺
--
Br,
Andres
___
Ok. So lets start again. :)
How about changing the subject to:
glsl: on UBO/SSBOs link error reset the number of active blocks to 0
On 23/02/17 19:55, Andres Gomez wrote:
Commit f1293b2f9bc3 split apart buffer block arrays but introduced
also the possibility of a recount of active
blocks (Num
On Sun, 2017-03-12 at 16:34 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
>
> On 12/03/17 12:17, Andres Gomez wrote:
> > On Sun, 2017-03-12 at 10:07 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> > >
> > > On 12/03/17 00:29, Andres Gomez wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2017-03-11 at 23:24 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
On 12/03/17 12:17, Andres Gomez wrote:
On Sun, 2017-03-12 at 10:07 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 12/03/17 00:29, Andres Gomez wrote:
On Sat, 2017-03-11 at 23:24 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 10/03/17 18:53, Andres Gomez wrote:
According with that text it would be OK to report a diffe
On Sun, 2017-03-12 at 10:07 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
>
> On 12/03/17 00:29, Andres Gomez wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-03-11 at 23:24 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> > >
> > > On 10/03/17 18:53, Andres Gomez wrote:
> > > >
> > > > According with that text it would be OK to report a different number
On 12/03/17 00:29, Andres Gomez wrote:
On Sat, 2017-03-11 at 23:24 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 10/03/17 18:53, Andres Gomez wrote:
According with that text it would be OK to report a different number
than 0 when asking for the active UBOs to the failed link program but
it still will be
On Sat, 2017-03-11 at 23:24 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
>
> On 10/03/17 18:53, Andres Gomez wrote:
> >
> > According with that text it would be OK to report a different number
> > than 0 when asking for the active UBOs to the failed link program but
> > it still will be not OK that, when trying
On 10/03/17 18:53, Andres Gomez wrote:
On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 14:28 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 10/03/17 08:46, Andres Gomez wrote:
On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 08:32 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 23/02/17 19:55, Andres Gomez wrote:
Commit f1293b2f9bc3 split apart buffer block arrays but int
On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 14:28 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
>
> On 10/03/17 08:46, Andres Gomez wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 08:32 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> > > On 23/02/17 19:55, Andres Gomez wrote:
> > > > Commit f1293b2f9bc3 split apart buffer block arrays but introduced
> > > > also the
On 10/03/17 08:46, Andres Gomez wrote:
On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 08:32 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 23/02/17 19:55, Andres Gomez wrote:
Commit f1293b2f9bc3 split apart buffer block arrays but introduced
also the possibility of a recount of active
blocks (NumUniformBlocks/NumShaderStorageBlocks
On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 08:32 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> On 23/02/17 19:55, Andres Gomez wrote:
> > Commit f1293b2f9bc3 split apart buffer block arrays but introduced
> > also the possibility of a recount of active
> > blocks (NumUniformBlocks/NumShaderStorageBlocks) which would be
> > incoherent
On 23/02/17 19:55, Andres Gomez wrote:
Commit f1293b2f9bc3 split apart buffer block arrays but introduced
also the possibility of a recount of active
blocks (NumUniformBlocks/NumShaderStorageBlocks) which would be
incoherent with the actual amount of active
blocks (UniformBlocks/ShaderStorageBloc
Commit f1293b2f9bc3 split apart buffer block arrays but introduced
also the possibility of a recount of active
blocks (NumUniformBlocks/NumShaderStorageBlocks) which would be
incoherent with the actual amount of active
blocks (UniformBlocks/ShaderStorageBlocks) in the program.
This could cause a s
13 matches
Mail list logo
