[Piglit] [PATCH] glsl-1.50-geometry-end-primitive: ensure position data is reasonably aligned

From: Roland Scheidegger The rect halves comparison is in fact not valid in general. The reason is that the same geometry does not have the same precision even if it it just shifted by some fixed amount in one direction. As an example, some calculated x value near 7 will be near 263 if drawn with

Re: [Piglit] [PATCH] glsl-1.50-geometry-end-primitive: ensure position data is reasonably aligned

Oops just forget the changes on the quad-invariance test (this is just what I used to prove the same issue on "real" hw). Am 09.01.2016 um 02:12 schrieb srol...@vmware.com: > From: Roland Scheidegger > > The rect halves comparison is in fact not valid in general. The reason is that > the same ge

Re: [Piglit] [PATCH] glsl-1.50-geometry-end-primitive: ensure position data is reasonably aligned

On 01/08/2016 05:12 PM, srol...@vmware.com wrote: > From: Roland Scheidegger > > The rect halves comparison is in fact not valid in general. The reason is that > the same geometry does not have the same precision even if it it just shifted > by some fixed amount in one direction. > As an example,

Re: [Piglit] [PATCH] glsl-1.50-geometry-end-primitive: ensure position data is reasonably aligned

Am 09.01.2016 um 04:09 schrieb Ian Romanick: > On 01/08/2016 05:12 PM, srol...@vmware.com wrote: >> From: Roland Scheidegger >> >> The rect halves comparison is in fact not valid in general. The reason is >> that >> the same geometry does not have the same precision even if it it just shifted >>

[Piglit] [PATCH] glsl-1.50-geometry-end-primitive: ensure position data is reasonably aligned

From: Roland Scheidegger The rect halves comparison is in fact not valid in general. The reason is that the same geometry does not have the same precision even if it it just shifted by some fixed amount in one direction. As an example, some calculated x value near 7 will be near 263 if drawn with