On my Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 Ti `ddxddy.shader_test` doesn't pass because of considerably different numeric results.
As Giovanni pointed out, this is because my GPU uses the fine derivate and not the coarse derivate to implement ddx() and ddy().
For this reason, the result for ddx|ddy() is quantized so that the test passes if the GPU uses either coarse or fine derivates.
Additionally, tests for both ddx_coarse|ddy_coarse() and ddx_fine|ddy_fine() are added, that expect a more precise result.
--
v4: vkd3d-shader/hlsl: Support fine derivates.
vkd3d-shader/hlsl: Support coarse derivates.
tests: Quantize regular and coarse derivate test results.
tests: Make ddx() and ddy() test behave correctly for shader models < 4.
tests: Test coarse and fine derivates.
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/vkd3d/-/merge_requests/224
This is obviously questionable, as it requires reaching into Wine internals in
tests (beyond simply detecting whether Wine is in use).
However, we are at a point where, for d3d10 and above, the Vulkan renderer works
well enough in general to see real use [in fact, in my experience it usually
works better than the GL renderer], and at this point I think avoiding
regressions is quite important. It is currently difficult to run tests with it
when the results contain so much noise, and I think we need to solve this
problem, by actually marking which tests work on each backend.
We could in theory expose the renderer through some adapter string, but I
believe in the past applications have been sensitive about the contents of
adapter strings.
Fixing either renderer to reach and maintain parity is not feasible. The GL
renderer is not going away, but regrettably GL as an API is abandoned by
Khronos, and important features we need in order to implement some Direct3D
features will probably never be introduced into GL. Moreover, the amount of
effort that would be required to reach parity is not small, and itself would all
need to be verified manually.
--
v2: d3d10core/tests: Mark test failures specific to the Vulkan or GL renderers.
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3232
> The part that doesn't thrill me is the fact that DXGI still directly accesses the VkQueue object, which I tend to see as an internal implementation detail to vkd3d. On the other hand it's nice that we don't need new API from vkd3d (even if, in the future, we were to need something other than vkQueueSubmit() and vkQueuePresentKHR()).
For what it's worth, it was a fairly explicit design decision early on to expose the underlying Vulkan objects for d3d12 devices and command queues, as well as to allow the creation of d3d12 resources on top of existing Vulkan images, for the purpose of interoperation with other Vulkan code. I.e., the idea is that it should be possible to integrate vkd3d into a larger Vulkan application to draw some parts using the d3d12 API, while everything else is drawn using Vulkan.
The internal queueing of command queue operations on the vkd3d level is unfortunate in that regard; ideally we just wouldn't do that. This MR could probably do a better job of explaining why we need to do that in some cases, and what kind of command queue operation sequences could result in out-of-order presentation.
If we're going to need to introduce a DXGI worker thread anyway, could we just make vkd3d_acquire_vk_queue() block until there are no longer any operations queued?
--
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3165#note_37779
Sub / Function can be on one line, but only if there's brackets.
```
| Storage_opt tFUNCTION Identifier ArgumentsDecl BodyStatements tEND tFUNCTION
```
This leads to sometimes to `link_statements` being called with `head` being NULL, probably because now the `:` can be parsed as `Statement` in `BodyStatements`.
Also note that this introduces another shift/reduce conflict, could be related, but I don't understand it well enough. Feedback would be appreciated, I'm still learning bison.
--
v3: vbscript: Support one-line sub/function.
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3206