On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 14:59 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 07:20 +0100, Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez wrote:
> > Commit 781d278 did not restrict consumer_stage only to separate
> > shader
> > objects, which is when we don't know if the consumer stage would be
> > a
> > fragment
On 01/26/2016 05:59 AM, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 07:20 +0100, Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez wrote:
Commit 781d278 did not restrict consumer_stage only to separate
shader
objects, which is when we don't know if the consumer stage would be a
fragment shader added later. In normal
On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 07:20 +0100, Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez wrote:
> Commit 781d278 did not restrict consumer_stage only to separate
> shader
> objects, which is when we don't know if the consumer stage would be a
> fragment shader added later. In normal programs, when
> consumer_stage == -1, it
This patch is still unreviewed.
Sam
On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 07:20 +0100, Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez wrote:
> Commit 781d278 did not restrict consumer_stage only to separate
> shader
> objects, which is when we don't know if the consumer stage would be a
> fragment shader added later. In normal
On 25 January 2016 11:35:04 pm AEDT, "Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez"
wrote:
>This patch is still unreviewed.
I'll take another look tomorrow unless someone gets to it first. I've looked at
it but didn't really look hard enough to understand the problem the previous
patch
Commit 781d278 did not restrict consumer_stage only to separate shader
objects, which is when we don't know if the consumer stage would be a
fragment shader added later. In normal programs, when
consumer_stage == -1, it is because they are not consumed.
Fixes 4 piglit regressions added by commit