Closed
Bug 616608
Opened 14 years ago
Closed 14 years ago
Pass the rest of webgl-specific.html test (sections 6.4, 6.5, 6.7 of the spec)
Categories
(Core :: Graphics: CanvasWebGL, defect)
Core
Graphics: CanvasWebGL
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: bjacob, Assigned: bjacob)
Details
Attachments
(3 files, 2 obsolete files)
1.01 KB,
patch
|
vlad
:
review+
joe
:
approval2.0+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
4.25 KB,
patch
|
vlad
:
review+
joe
:
approval2.0+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
4.12 KB,
patch
|
vlad
:
review+
joe
:
approval2.0+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
First patch: pass section 6.7 on depthRange.
Attachment #495107 -
Flags: review?(vladimir)
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•14 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•14 years ago
|
||
Just doing this formally, to get this test page green.
Attachment #495116 -
Flags: review?(vladimir)
Attachment #495107 -
Flags: review?(vladimir) → review+
Comment on attachment 495111 [details] [diff] [review] implement section 6.5 on separate parameters >+ if (ref != mStencilRef || mask != mStencilValueMask) >+ return ErrorInvalidOperation("stencilFuncSeparate: WebGL doesn't currently allow specifying " >+ "different values for front and back, i.e. this function is currently useless."); Let's not get snarky here :-) "WebGL requires the same values for both front and back stencil mask" or something. Also, this function can still work fine, if the specified face is GL_FRONT_AND_BACK, in which case it should work the same as glStencilMask. > NS_IMETHODIMP > WebGLContext::StencilMaskSeparate(WebGLenum face, WebGLuint mask) > { > if (!ValidateFaceEnum(face, "stencilMaskSeparate: face")) > return NS_OK; > >+ if (mask != mStencilWriteMask) >+ return ErrorInvalidOperation("stencilMaskSeparate: WebGL doesn't currently allow specifying " >+ "different values for front and back, i.e. this function is currently useless."); >+ Same thing here for face == FRONT_AND_BACK; the function should set the write mask and mStencilWriteMask if face == FRONT_AND_BACK.
Attachment #495111 -
Flags: review?(vladimir) → review-
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•14 years ago
|
||
OK, I had overlooked FRONT_AND_BACK in the logic.
Attachment #495111 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #495126 -
Flags: review?(vladimir)
Attachment #495116 -
Flags: review?(vladimir) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•14 years ago
|
||
Forgot to update the values.
Attachment #495126 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #495128 -
Flags: review?(vladimir)
Attachment #495126 -
Flags: review?(vladimir)
Comment on attachment 495128 [details] [diff] [review] implement section 6.5 on separate parameters thanks :)
Attachment #495128 -
Flags: review?(vladimir) → review+
Updated•14 years ago
|
Attachment #495107 -
Flags: approval2.0+
Updated•14 years ago
|
Attachment #495116 -
Flags: approval2.0+
Updated•14 years ago
|
Attachment #495128 -
Flags: approval2.0+
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•14 years ago
|
||
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/0166ebdffad8 http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/48dfe6fbd6b4 http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/2b4e8d17d7b7
Assignee | ||
Updated•14 years ago
|
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•