Part of the Khronos Group
OpenGL.org

The Industry's Foundation for High Performance Graphics

from games to virtual reality, mobile phones to supercomputers

Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Strange Warning on ATI

  1. #1
    Junior Member Newbie
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    6

    Strange Warning on ATI

    Hello.

    Today i tested one of my applications on an ati graphics card.
    I get a strange warning which i never read on nvidia:

    "WARNING: 0:5: warning(#239) Declaration should include a precision qualifier or the default precision should have been previously declared"

    Im using glsl version 150 and opengl 3.1.

    The shaders:
    Code :
    #version 150
     
    in vec2 vin;
    in vec2 vtc;
     
    uniform mat4 camera;
    uniform mat4 model;
     
    out vec2 ftc;
     
    void main(){
    	ftc = vtc;
    	gl_Position = camera * model * vec4(vin, 0, 1);
    }
     
    ###
     
    #version 150
     
    in vec2 ftc;
     
    uniform sampler2D tex;
     
    out vec4 outColor;
     
    void main(){
    	vec4 color = texture2D(tex, ftc);
    	outColor = color;		
    }

    wheres the problem here?

  2. #2
    Junior Member Newbie
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    6
    Nobody of 146 people?...

  3. #3
    Member Regular Contributor Agent D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Innsbruck, Austria
    Posts
    281
    Something you yourself could have tried in the mean time:
    • Read the compile log to determine what shader the warning is issued for (vertex shader, fragment shader or both)
    • Read the compile log to determine the exact line number it occours at
    • If you don't know alredy, find out what a precision qualifier is
    • Go to that specific line, try adding a precison qualifier and look what happens
    • Alternatively: Not care about having that strange warning on an ATI GLSL compiler as long as it works

  4. #4
    Intern Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    65
    I once saw that, too, on an older AMD driver. The only remedy was to add the precision qualifier, redundant as it was...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •