- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork353
Handle negative index in vertex processing#5076
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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
base:main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
Also refactor the prose slightly so that this change makes more sense incontext.Fixes 5064
Previews, as seen when thisbuild job started (f6c145d): |
kainino0x commentedFeb 19, 2025
Oh, Brandon is out. Jim, could you review? |
mwyrzykowski left a comment• edited
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
edited
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
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.
Doesn't the definition ofvertexElementRelativeOffset still allow for negativevertexElementIndex? E.g., consider
|vertexElementIndex| * |vertexBufferLayout|.{{GPUVertexBufferLayout/arrayStride}} + |attributeDesc|.{{GPUVertexAttribute/offset}}.as long as|attributeDesc|.{{GPUVertexAttribute/offset}} >=-|vertexElementIndex| * |vertexBufferLayout|.{{GPUVertexBufferLayout/arrayStride}} then as written I believevertexElementIndex < 0 would still be allowed.
Is negativevertexElementIndex supported across all APIs? I could only find reference in the GL specification which says it is not. Specifically I would wonder which values are populated invertex_index on the shader side.
Kangz commentedOct 2, 2025
Is this PR still current? |
kainino0x commentedOct 7, 2025
We never fixed this so yes. But I'll have to revisit at some point to figure out what we were doing. |
Also refactor the prose slightly so that this change makes more sense in context.
Fixes#5064