Comment # 16
on bug 63579
from Ian Romanick
(In reply to comment #15) > Thanks for the clarification, but I'm still not entirely convinced. > > I agree that this per-spec for OpenGL ES 3.0 (although I'm a bit > disappointed that the ES3-group missed that we in the ES2-group had made it > easy for you by requiring #version to be the first bytes, if present), and > that there are spec-justification to rejecting the shader in question to > compile (due to the character being outside of the character set). And I > think we both agree that doing the latter would be a bad idea. > > But I don't agree that this is per-spec for OpenGL nor OpenGL ES 2.0. It's > the ratified spec that is the standard, not whatever discussions were held > during the meeting. And even though you have a large collection of shaders > that does not use it, I don't think breaking existing (unknown) applications > is a good idea. How many shaders besides syntetic glsparsertest-shaders > requires line-continuation to work correctly? My guess would be zero; > shaders like these would not compile on AMD, NVIDIA, nor Intel's Windows > drivers. I've just tested the latter. So apparently, Mesa is the only major > OpenGL implementation that currently implements this. They all support it in preprocessor directives. We verified this in 2010 when we added that level of support back. As I said before, we've encountered shaders in games that use line continuation for multi-line macros. #define foo(a, b) \ do { \ b = bar(a); \ } while(0) Making the support general (instead of just for preprocessor directives) simplified the code greatly. Since I'm responsible for maintaining this code base as my job, that's a strong incentive for me. > By the way, the WebGL conformance tests also checks that line continuation > does not work. So there are at least two known, publically available shaders > that depends on no line-continuation to work. Of course, the latter is > synthetic, but at least it's based on wording in a specification. I'm not going to add complexity or overhead to the preprocessor for this case. If WebGL tests non-continuation behavior, we can add the browsers to the workaround list. > I'm not trying to be a pain here, I just think you're pushing for a > direction that just leads to even more fragmentation and pain.
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
