Am 24.08.2016 um 11:26 schrieb Marek Olšák: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Roland Scheidegger <srol...@vmware.com> > wrote: >> Am 22.08.2016 um 23:13 schrieb Marek Olšák: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 23 August 2016 at 06:14, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Brian Paul <bri...@vmware.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 08/22/2016 08:38 AM, Marek Olšák wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Marek Olšák <marek.ol...@amd.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sampler view declarations have return types, but that doesn't work with >>>>>>> variable indexing (e.g. SAMP[-1+i]). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adding the return type to the instruction is simpler. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All sampler view declaration flags might have to be removed since >>>>>>> variable >>>>>>> indexing makes them inaccessible. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you want to get rid of sampler view declarations entirely? >>>>> >>>>> No, they have their place and I think the sampler view declarations >>>>> should stay, but the flags that are attached to them are basically >>>>> inaccessible with variable indexing. Since I have no reason to add >>>>> array support for sampler view declarations (unlike IN,OUT,TEMP, where >>>>> we needed array support due to other reasons), I prefer moving the >>>>> flags to instructions. >>>> >>>> It should be illegal in all APIs I thought to do mixed arrays. >>>> >>>> So if you have 1+x, then the bits on 1 should be the same as the >>>> bits on all the other sampler views in the array (even though there is >>>> no array). >>>> >>>> Is there a real world problem being solved? >>> >>> No, it's just for TGSI robustness (not to be confused with GL robustness). >>> >> >> I guess I replied to the wrong thread... >> >> In any case, I'd much prefer array support for sampler view dcls >> instead. Mixed arrays are illegal everywhere, and it's nice to see that >> in the translated shaders. And, even if you might not care on your hw, >> someone might benefit from separate arrays (I'm near certain a proper >> llvmpipe implementation of variable indexing would). > > Array support is a lot more work than this. I already did that for IN > and OUTs. I'm really not into it. I'm also not really into > DX10-anything as that's a deprecated API in the industry at this point > (if I ignore it's not even in Mesa). >
I't nost so much about dx10 really. There's a reason noone allows mixed arrays. Using multiple arrays is a much more direct translation of glsl too. I'm sorry if properly fixing it is more work than a hack, but from my point of view interface cleanlyness wins by a long shot, so I'd still say NAK. Roland _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
