This patch reworks our conformance testing framework because it seems
that glib's gtesting framework isn't really well suited to our use case.
For example we weren't able to test windows builds given the way we
were using it and also for each test we'd like to repeat the test
with several different environments so we can test important driver and
feature combinations.
This patch instead switches away to a simplified but custom approach for
running our unit tests. We hope that having a more bespoke setup will
enable us to easily extend it to focus on the details important to us.
Notable changes with this new approach are:
We can now run 'make test' for our mingw windows builds.
We've got rid of all the test-*report* make rules and we're just left
with 'make test'
'make test' now runs each test several times with different driver and
feature combinations checking the result for each run. 'make test' will
then output a concise table of all of the results.
The combinations tested are:
- OpenGL Fixed Function
- OpenGL ARBfp
- OpenGL GLSL
- OpenGL No NPOT texture support
- OpenGLES 2.0
- OpenGLES 2.0 No NPOT texture support
Reviewed-by: Neil Roberts <neil@linux.intel.com>
As we move towards Cogl 2.0 we are aiming to remove the need for a
default global CoglContext and so everything should be explicitly
related to a context somehow. CoglPipelines are top level objects and
so this patch adds a context argument to cogl_pipeline_new().
Reviewed-by: Neil Roberts <neil@linux.intel.com>
There are currently quite a few places in Cogl where we muddle the
layer index and the texture unit number. The theory is that these two
numbers shouldn't be related and it should be possible to pick large
layer numbers with gaps.
This patch adds a test case to check that we can reference a large
layer number from a texture combine string by creating a pipeline with
only three layers but that have very large layer indices. This doesn't
currently work because Cogl interprets the numbers in the combine
strings to be the unit indices and not the layer indices. The
documentation however calls these numbers layer numbers so presumably
it is not meant to work that way.
There are probably many other bugs related to this that the test case
doesn't pick up so it would be good to add some more tests here, for
example to test that you can bind an attribute to the texture
coordinates for a large layer index.
Reviewed-by: Robert Bragg <robert@linux.intel.com>
