The first parameter of eglQueryDeviceStringEXT()
is an EGLDevice, not an EGLDisplay.
Signed-off-by: James Jones <jajo...@nvidia.com>
---
tests/egl/spec/egl_ext_device_query/egl_ext_device_query.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/eg
EGL_EXT_device_base is equivalent to
EGL_EXT_device_query && EGL_EXT_device_enumeration
Signed-off-by: James Jones <jajo...@nvidia.com>
---
.../spec/egl_ext_device_enumeration/egl_ext_device_enumeration.c | 8 +---
tests/egl/spec/egl_ext_device_query/egl_ext_device_quer
I found a few test issues and errors when running the new
egl_ext_device_query and egl_ext_device_enumeration tests. With
these patches, both tests pass on the binary NVIDIA drivers.
James Jones (3):
egl: Check for EGL_EXT_device_base
egl: eglQueryDevicesEXT returns EGL_TRUE on success
egl
This is the case even when is NULL or
< . The only
error conditions mentioned in the spec are for
being NULL, or <= 0 when
!= NULL.
Signed-off-by: James Jones <jajo...@nvidia.com>
---
tests/egl/spec/egl_ext_device_enumeration/egl_ext_device_enumeration.c | 2 +-
1 file changed,
For those who don't want to click-through, I'll just paste the very
brief portion of the spec on Pixel Ownership that Alex linked to here:
[1] The first test is to determine if the pixel at location in the
framebuffer is currently owned by the GL (more precisely, by this GL
context). If it is
-winsys-framework-Default-to-showing-window.patch
Reviewed-by: James Jones jajo...@nvidia.com
I'll commit this soon if no one objects.
Thanks,
-James
On 07/20/2015 02:44 PM, Alexander Goins wrote:
Hello all,
During some recent debugging, I seem to have discovered an issue with
Piglit that could
for offsets that are not
multiples of 4 when using S3TC textures, as this
test does. Therefore, implementations can
legitimately generate either error here. To avoid
ambiguity, use -4 instead.
Passes on GeForce GTX 680 (binary driver 346.47)
Signed-off-by: James Jones jajo...@nvidia.com
---
tests
On 6/12/12 3:12 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
On 06/12/2012 02:56 PM, James Jones wrote:
On 6/12/12 2:47 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
On 06/12/2012 02:35 PM, James Jones wrote:
On 6/12/12 2:25 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
From: Ian Romanickian.d.roman...@intel.com
The spec doesn't forbid indirect rendering
