Both the texRect.c and textureNPOT.c conformance tests fail. Using git-bisect, I discovered that the commit below is the culprit. All of the changes in that commit appear to be generic, but I have not verified whether or not these test pass (or ever passed) on i915 generation hardware. I'll see if I can enhance the piglit copytexsubimage test to reproduce similar failures. commit 3e0164aabb48a99fce58964cad99fd3978ee84f6 Author: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net> Date: Fri Nov 21 17:09:47 2008 +0800 i965: Add support for accelerated CopyTexSubImage. There were hacks in EmitCopyBlit before to adjust offsets so that y=0 after the offsets had been adjusted for a negative pitch. It appears that those hacks were due to an unclear and surprising aspect of the hardware: invertin the pitch results in the blit into the specified rectangle being inverted, without the user needing to adjust y and base offset. Tested with piglit copytexsubimage test on 915GM and GM965. Should fix serious performance issues with ETQW and other applications.
Created attachment 21256 [details] [review] piglit NPOT and rectangle test This patch enhances the piglit copytexsubimage test to, when available, test texture rectangles and non-power-of-two textures. The bad news, however, is that the i965 driver passes this test while failing the conformance test.
The texRect.c also fails for swrast and 915, regardless of whether I revert that commit.
Comment on attachment 21256 [details] [review] piglit NPOT and rectangle test piglit test is in master
On mesa_7_4_branch this bug appears to have been fixed by: commit 63ed288396a7f078b88dbd92e201134797cf89eb Author: Ian Romanick <ian.d.romanick@intel.com> Date: Fri Mar 27 14:22:47 2009 -0700 intel: Add extra, stronger flushes around CopyTexSubImage blits This commit does not exist on master.
Mass version move, cvs -> git
texRect.c passed now with following configuration: Libdrm (master)caad8d85559709301c00760b9e8707d57f8c6c67 Mesa (master)7ee4f32dcdd4cc935ed48ffb46ecc6678047958e Xf86_video_intel (master)5dccd1be3ab80b642ef2022446f5bdc1656ed943 Kernel (drm-intel-next)819e0064634f580ab618189e657ea58341d214b7
(In reply to comment #6) > texRect.c passed now with following configuration: > Libdrm (master)caad8d85559709301c00760b9e8707d57f8c6c67 > Mesa (master)7ee4f32dcdd4cc935ed48ffb46ecc6678047958e > Xf86_video_intel (master)5dccd1be3ab80b642ef2022446f5bdc1656ed943 > Kernel (drm-intel-next)819e0064634f580ab618189e657ea58341d214b7 > (In reply to comment #6) > texRect.c passed now with following configuration: > Libdrm (master)caad8d85559709301c00760b9e8707d57f8c6c67 > Mesa (master)7ee4f32dcdd4cc935ed48ffb46ecc6678047958e > Xf86_video_intel (master)5dccd1be3ab80b642ef2022446f5bdc1656ed943 > Kernel (drm-intel-next)819e0064634f580ab618189e657ea58341d214b7 > but textureNPOT.c still fails
textureNPOT looks fine now too
(In reply to comment #8) > textureNPOT looks fine now too > I'd reopen it. It still fails with following configuration on GM45: Libdrm: (master)db50f5127421ac8f4e3ce4eb7c27d27475781488 Mesa: (mesa_7_7_branch)5e6fff7ac4a4e0d06d394391f6e2dd2eb6ff8aee Xserver: (server-1.7-branch)aea5ace1ee331fab0b72885ce0d5d3fc235e0708 Xf86_video_intel: (master)8ecf70ea553083cbc26928dc3973c8f6f8b3d9d0 Kernel: (master)22763c5cf3690a681551162c15d34d935308c8d7
I can't reproduce failure with textureNPOT.c.
(In reply to comment #10) > I can't reproduce failure with textureNPOT.c. > it still failed at my side.
textureNPOT.c still fails on both Piketon (i965) and Pineview (i915).
Is it still failing with 2011q3 release?
(In reply to comment #13) > Is it still failing with 2011q3 release? Yes, on i965, it still fails with mesa 7.11 branch (more accurately, fail on Ironlake and SNB, but pass on G45). But it passes with mesa master branch now. On i915 (Pineview), it fails with both 7.11 and master branch.
The test passes on Haswell and Ironlake today. I haven't tested Pineview, but this is filed as a 965 bug, and no one with access to Intel's oglconform suite is likely to care about fixing Pineview even if it is broken. So, marking resolved/fixed.
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.