-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 671
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Disallow point rendering with undefined point size #3356
Conversation
</p> | ||
<div class="note rationale"> | ||
<p> | ||
Point rendering with undefined point size is undefined in GLES and may be unsupported in other APIs. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
From concall: please mention something more precise about why this doesn't work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
After looking into this again, it seems there are two underlying issues there:
- D3D11 does not support point rendering with point size greater than
1.0
, so ANGLE generates a geometry shader to handle that. - The presence of
gl_PointSize
in the original ESSL source non-trivially affects ANGLE's shader translator (e.g., how varyings are packed), so simply prepending all shaders withgl_PointSize = 1.0;
may cause unexpected issues. Those may be caused by unknown bugs in the translator.
So this issue looks like an ANGLE limitation, which may remain indefinitely.
What would be the appropriate language for the spec here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, it would be ideal to update the conformance tests at the same time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@lexaknyazev is it feasible for you to make the requested changes?
Just so this doesn't get lost, I'm not sure this should happen. See #2822 (comment) |
Failing to set this was relying on currently-undefined behavior and causing the tests to fail on Apple's M1. Related to KhronosGroup#2818, KhronosGroup#2822 and KhronosGroup#3356.
Failing to set this was relying on currently-undefined behavior and causing the tests to fail on Apple's M1. Related to KhronosGroup#2818, KhronosGroup#2822 and KhronosGroup#3356.
Closed in favor of #3370. |
Fixes #2818.
Should the CTS update be included in this PR before merging?