Hmm, I did not know that. Can we do

((GLuint64)1) << 62

Also, I am a little confused about your comment that the patch doesn't preserve the low bits. My aim was to keep 0xffff0000 in the low 32 bits - doesn't "- 0xffff" achieve that goal?

Thanks for your feedback.

Robert
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 05:28 Henri Verbeet <hverbeet@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12 August 2017 at 11:06,������ <nneonneo@gmail.com> wrote:
> -������ ������ ������ ������ /* Apple seems to be into arbitrary limits, and timeouts larger than
> -������ ������ ������ ������ ������* 0xfffffffffffffbff immediately return GL_TIMEOUT_EXPIRED. We don't
> -������ ������ ������ ������ ������* really care and can live with waiting a few ������s less. (OS X 10.7.4). */
> +������ ������ ������ ������ /* Timeouts near 0xffffffffffffffff may immediately return GL_TIMEOUT_EXPIRED,
> +������ ������ ������ ������ ������* possibly because macOS internally adds some slop to the timer. To avoid this,
> +������ ������ ������ ������ ������* we use a large number that isn't near the point of overflow (macOS 10.12.5).
> +������ ������ ������ ������ ������*/
>������ ������ ������ ������ ������ GLenum gl_ret = GL_EXTCALL(glClientWaitSync(fence->object.sync,
> -������ ������ ������ ������ ������ ������ ������ ������ GL_SYNC_FLUSH_COMMANDS_BIT, ~(GLuint64)0xffff));
> +������ ������ ������ ������ ������ ������ ������ ������ GL_SYNC_FLUSH_COMMANDS_BIT, (GLuint64)((1ULL << 62ULL) - 0xffff)));
Adjusting the workaround is probably fine, but ULL literals are not
portable. Does something along the lines of "~(GLuint64)0 >> 1" work
as well? I don't think we care about the low bits, but note that the
patch as it is doesn't actually preserve them.