(In reply to Michel Dänzer from comment #51)
> (In reply to Diego Viola from comment #46)
> > Maybe that's why the bisect went bad?
> 
> That's likely one reason at least. At this point it's probably best if you
> double-check everything before testing anything. :)

Sure, sorry about any possible false-positives that I might have provided by
accident.

> 
> (In reply to Diego Viola from comment #47)
> > But then I cannot reproduce the bug anymore.
> 
> The working hypothesis is that it's a Mesa regression between 18.3 and 19.0,
> so that makes sense?

Yes, is there any more info that I can provide that you think would be useful?

Thanks.