On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 16:28 -0700, Luca Barbieri wrote: > > A couple of questions - it looks like this is a drop-in for the > > d3d10/11 runtime, rather than an implementation of the DDI. > Yes. > > > I think > > that makes sense, but it could also be possible to split it into two > > pieces implementing either side of the d3d10 DDI interface. Any > > thoughts on whether that's interesting to you? > > I wrote it this way first of all because it's clearly easier to just > write the code to support one interface, rather than writing two > pieces, and it avoids unnecessary reliance on Microsoft interfaces, > which often tend to be imperfectly documented. > Not going through the DDI also clearly reduces CPU overhead and keeps > the codebase simpler. > > I think a DDI implementation over Gallium could just live along as a > sibling to the COM implementation, sharing common code, which is > already split out into modules such as d3d1xshader and d3d1xstutil. > The shader parser and translator can be fully shared and several > conversions (e.g. DXGI_FORMAT -> pipe_format) are already separate > from the main code, although perhaps more could be factored out. > > Instead, layering the COM API over the DDI API doesn't necessarily > seem to be a win, especially because Gallium is so close to the > D3D10/11 interfaces that it's not even clear that using the DDI is > much easier than just using Gallium directly. > > I don't think I'll do it myself as an hobby project though.
Sounds good Luca, just interested in your plans for this. I don't see any reason not to merge this to master straight away -- this is all self-contained in its own directory & doesn't seem like it will regress anything else... Keith _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
