On 2016-05-31 23:00:02, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 1:34:42 AM PDT Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> >> Because strtol() truncates the the maximum value of "long", as does
> >> scanf apparently. This will make it impossible to test
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 1:34:42 AM PDT Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> Because strtol() truncates the the maximum value of "long", as does
>> scanf apparently. This will make it impossible to test that a counter
>> == -1 though, right?
>
> Yes, I s
On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 1:34:42 AM PDT Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> Because strtol() truncates the the maximum value of "long", as does
> scanf apparently. This will make it impossible to test that a counter
> == -1 though, right?
Yes, I suppose it would. But you can always do == 4294967295 instead,
a
Because strtol() truncates the the maximum value of "long", as does
scanf apparently. This will make it impossible to test that a counter
== -1 though, right?
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:02 AM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> We're trying to compare two unsigned values, so we should use %u.
>
> For whateve
We're trying to compare two unsigned values, so we should use %u.
For whatever reason, using %d instead of %u causes
tests/spec/arb_compute_shader/execution/atomic-counter.shader_test
to read 2147483647 instead of 4294966784 for the expected value
which is written directly in the [test] script, bu
