Comment # 17
on bug 63579
from Erik Faye-Lund
(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > Thanks for the clarification, but I'm still not entirely convinced.
> >
> > I've just tested the latter. So apparently, Mesa is the only major
> > OpenGL implementation that currently implements this.
>
> They all support it in preprocessor directives. We verified this in 2010
> when we added that level of support back. As I said before, we've
> encountered shaders in games that use line continuation for multi-line
> macros.
>
> #define foo(a, b) \
> do { \
> b = bar(a); \
> } while(0)
That might very well be the case. But this ticket is not about line
continuation in pre-processor directives. My test were in comments, as is the
issue with this ticket. And none of them implementations listed above supports
them in comments before a "#version 420" statement (if supported at all).
> Making the support general (instead of just for preprocessor directives)
> simplified the code greatly. Since I'm responsible for maintaining this
> code base as my job, that's a strong incentive for me.
I'm sorry if this is a bit blunt, but wow. That's one of the least appealing
arguments I've heard in a long time. Not only is someone paying you for your
time, you think that's a *justification* for not supporting the standard?
That's pretty much the oppositte of how this usually works.
So, as a paying customer of Intel, where would I file a bug-report that Intel
will deal with in a responsible way?
> > By the way, the WebGL conformance tests also checks that line continuation
> > does not work. So there are at least two known, publically available shaders
> > that depends on no line-continuation to work. Of course, the latter is
> > synthetic, but at least it's based on wording in a specification.
>
> I'm not going to add complexity or overhead to the preprocessor for this
> case. If WebGL tests non-continuation behavior, we can add the browsers to
> the workaround list.
Fair enough. At least when considered in isolation.