From: "Zebediah Figura (she/her)" Subject: Re: [PATCH vkd3d 2/6] tests: Test a number of simple HLSL operations. Message-Id: Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 15:07:53 -0600 In-Reply-To: References: <20220125110753.1358613-1-gmascellani@codeweavers.com> <20220125110753.1358613-2-gmascellani@codeweavers.com> On 1/25/22 14:17, Giovanni Mascellani wrote: > Hi, > > Il 25/01/22 19:59, Zebediah Figura (she/her) ha scritto: >> I don't really like this approach. For one thing, it makes it harder >> to validate e.g. patches 4-6 from this series (I essentially have to >> write my own shaders). >> >> The complexity of the generated shader also makes it harder to read >> the IR to validate it's doing the right thing. >> >> Perhaps more importantly, some of these operations are supported by >> all HLSL versions, but some are only supported by SM4 (notably integer >> operations). Anything that can be tested in sm2 or sm3 should be, and >> as such I'd appreciate splitting those out where possible. > > Would it be better if I splitted this into many little shaders in the > same .shader_test file, like I already did for hlsl-shape.shader_test? I think that would be an improvement, yes. It doesn't let us remove them from XFAIL as easily, but it deals with the other problems. > > Also, is there a difference with 1/6 with this respect, since you signed > off on that one? Some of the problems apply to 1/6 as well, but I didn't find it problematic enough to complain about. But if you want to resend I won't object to that either.