From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bugzilla-daemon@freedesktop.org Subject: [Bug 93594] Flickering Shadows in The Talos Principle Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 16:06:17 +0000 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0509989971==" Return-path: Received: from culpepper.freedesktop.org (culpepper.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.165]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 225026EC72 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 16:06:18 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "dri-devel" To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org --===============0509989971== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="14558115772.Df35.18745"; charset="UTF-8" --14558115772.Df35.18745 Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 16:06:17 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93594 --- Comment #17 from Roland Scheidegger --- (In reply to Nicolai Hähnle from comment #16) > > One annoying aspect of this language is that one can reasonably read it as > non-uniformity only being relevant for non-helper fragments. If a pixel quad > is partial covered by the original primitive, and discard is used in a way > that keeps the covered pixels but discard the helper ones, should > derivatives be defined or not? That's a good question... My interpretation would be that derivatives should be undefined in this case if only because otherwise things get even more complex... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --14558115772.Df35.18745 Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 16:06:17 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html

Comment # 17 on bug 93594 from 
(In reply to Nicolai Hähnle from comment #16)
> 
> One annoying aspect of this language is that one can reasonably read it as
> non-uniformity only being relevant for non-helper fragments. If a pixel quad
> is partial covered by the original primitive, and discard is used in a way
> that keeps the covered pixels but discard the helper ones, should
> derivatives be defined or not?

That's a good question... My interpretation would be that derivatives should be
undefined in this case if only because otherwise things get even more
complex...

You are receiving this mail because:
  • You are the assignee for the bug.
--14558115772.Df35.18745-- --===============0509989971== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KZHJpLWRldmVs IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdApkcmktZGV2ZWxAbGlzdHMuZnJlZWRlc2t0b3Aub3JnCmh0dHBzOi8vbGlz dHMuZnJlZWRlc2t0b3Aub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vZHJpLWRldmVsCg== --===============0509989971==--