Comment # 17
on bug 63579
from Erik Faye-Lund
(In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #15) > > Thanks for the clarification, but I'm still not entirely convinced. > > > > 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) That might very well be the case. But this ticket is not about line continuation in pre-processor directives. My test were in comments, as is the issue with this ticket. And none of them implementations listed above supports them in comments before a "#version 420" statement (if supported at all). > 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. I'm sorry if this is a bit blunt, but wow. That's one of the least appealing arguments I've heard in a long time. Not only is someone paying you for your time, you think that's a *justification* for not supporting the standard? That's pretty much the oppositte of how this usually works. So, as a paying customer of Intel, where would I file a bug-report that Intel will deal with in a responsible way? > > 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. Fair enough. At least when considered in isolation.
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
