On 14 September 2012 14:08, Stuart Abercrombie wrote:
> I wondered about this case but it didn't come up with the subset I
> tested with -- glad you caught it.
>
> V2 looks good to me. It's hard to be rigorous about detecting
> #version directives without a real parser. This seems a practical
>
I wondered about this case but it didn't come up with the subset I
tested with -- glad you caught it.
V2 looks good to me. It's hard to be rigorous about detecting
#version directives without a real parser. This seems a practical
compromise.
Stuart
__
On 12 September 2012 11:18, Stuart Abercrombie wrote:
> This was a solitary patch. I think the git submit feature decided
> there were two on account of an old patch file in the same directory.
> Sorry for the confusion.
>
> Stuart
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Stuart Abercrombie
> wrote:
This was a solitary patch. I think the git submit feature decided
there were two on account of an old patch file in the same directory.
Sorry for the confusion.
Stuart
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Stuart Abercrombie
wrote:
> The version number is taken from the GLSL version requirement, if
On 10 September 2012 17:55, Stuart Abercrombie wrote:
> The version number is taken from the GLSL version requirement, if there is
> one.
>
> This is part of the effort to make version handling more flexible for GLES.
> ---
> tests/shaders/shader_runner.c | 41
>
The version number is taken from the GLSL version requirement, if there is one.
This is part of the effort to make version handling more flexible for GLES.
---
tests/shaders/shader_runner.c | 41 ++---
1 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff -
