[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Public WebGL] Weird shader compiler error - casting a mat4 into a mat3.
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Kenneth Russell <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 5:47 AM, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Benoit Jacob <email@example.com>
>> >>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>>> I have an odd vertex shader compiler error that's happening on just
>> >>>> one
>> >>>> of my machines.
>> >>>> The shader is utterly minimal (it renders a sky box) - and the
>> >>>> message is cryptic:
>> >>>> error C0201: unsupported version 120
>> >>>> ...the problem appears to be that I'm trying to cast a 4x4 matrix
>> >>>> a
>> >>>> 3x3 matrix.
>> >>> It seems that GLSL ES 1.0 doesn't have a mat3(mat4) constructor, as
>> >>> as I can see. Either this warning is telling you that you need to
>> >>> '#version 120' at the beginning of your shader, or it's telling you
>> >>> your GPU driver doesn't support version 120 on this GPU. It can be
>> >>> interesting to check with webgl.shader_validator=false, which
>> >>> ANGLE validation/translation, to see if the warning is coming from
>> >>> or straight from the driver.
>> >> The issue is actually that GLSL 1.10 (for the desktop) reserved the
>> >> matrix constructor calls taking matrix as argument. They were exposed
>> >> for the first time in GLSL 1.20. ANGLE's GLSL shader translator emits
>> >> the #version 120 directive if it encounters a matrix/matrix
>> >> constructor call, so the issue is that your hardware doesn't support
>> >> GLSL 1.20. You should be able to rewrite your shader to avoid this
>> >> constructor call which will be problematic on some older desktop
>> >> machines.
>> >> -Ken
>> > Thanks!
>> > It's worrying that something as seemingly simple as a cast could be
>> > something that WebGL developers have to be careful about...although
>> > no problem at all to restructure the shader to fix the problem.
>> > What's worrying is that I've been testing pretty widely and I thought
>> > ironed out all of the portability wrinkles.
>> > I guess we should clarify the limitations of the oldest version of
>> > that is supported. Almost everyone should be writing against that
>> > spec. We also need to find some way to test against that set of
>> > restrictions without having every WebGL developer having to own an
>> > antique computer collection.
>> I agree with you that it's problematic that some versions of desktop
>> GLSL are incapable of supporting the features of GLSL ES 1.0, but some
>> hiccups like this are bound to happen. In all fairness, the machine
>> you're testing on is pretty ancient -- I would guess six or seven
>> years old? At least the failure to compile the shader is reported
>> correctly via OpenGL mechanisms. It would be worse in the long run if
>> we restricted WebGL's shading language even further.
>> > Perhaps a good first step would be to have a flag to tell ANGLE to
>> emit a
>> > "#version" directive for the lowest supported GLSL version so we can
>> > the "real" error messages.
>> That doesn't work. If you use the matrix/matrix constructor calls then
>> ANGLE has to emit the #version 120 directive. It's otherwise illegal
>> to make those calls from desktop GLSL. Many GLSL compilers are lax in
>> checking this, but those on Mac OS X aren't, and will refuse to
>> compile the shader if it sees such a constructor call without the
>> #version directive.
> Couldn't ANGLE just emit its own constructor where appropriate?
> mat4 foo = mat4FromMat3(mat3);
(In this case, it was the reverse:
mat3 foo = mat3FromMat4(mat4);
...it's a common thing to want to do when you need to use a
rotate+translate matrix to do a simple rotate-only, for example so that
you can use the same matrix to transform a vertex and (with a mat3() cast)
a normal vector from model-space to world-space.)
In the case of matrix casting, having ANGLE automatically call an explicit
constructor would be great. But I don't know whether all of the missing
features prior to GLSL 120 could be covered in that way. It's possible
that some things flat out can't be done on hardware of this vintage...and
in that case I'd still like some way to get a coherent warning message.
Especially when I'm developing on a modern PC that can easily support 120
and therefore doesn't report any other kind of error.
You are currently subscribed to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe, send an email to email@example.com with
the following command in the body of your email: