Comment # 15
on bug 63579
from Erik Faye-Lund
Thanks for the clarification, but I'm still not entirely convinced.
I agree that this per-spec for OpenGL ES 3.0 (although I'm a bit disappointed
that the ES3-group missed that we in the ES2-group had made it easy for you by
requiring #version to be the first bytes, if present), and that there are
spec-justification to rejecting the shader in question to compile (due to the
character being outside of the character set). And I think we both agree that
doing the latter would be a bad idea.
But I don't agree that this is per-spec for OpenGL nor OpenGL ES 2.0. It's the
ratified spec that is the standard, not whatever discussions were held during
the meeting. And even though you have a large collection of shaders that does
not use it, I don't think breaking existing (unknown) applications is a good
idea. How many shaders besides syntetic glsparsertest-shaders requires
line-continuation to work correctly? My guess would be zero; shaders like these
would not compile on AMD, NVIDIA, nor Intel's Windows drivers. I've just tested
the latter. So apparently, Mesa is the only major OpenGL implementation that
currently implements this.
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 trying to be a pain here, I just think you're pushing for a direction
that just leads to even more fragmentation and pain.