On 12/13/2011 01:12 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 17:07:58 -0800, Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org>
> wrote:
>> This translates the GLSL compiler's IR into vec4_instruction IR,
>> generating code to load coordinates, LOD info, shadow comparitors, and
>> so on into the appropriate message registers.
>>
>> It turns out that the SIMD4x2 parameters are identical on Gen 5-7, and
>> the Gen4 code is similar enough that, unlike in the FS, it's easy enough
>> to support all generations in a single function.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org>
>> ---
>> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_visitor.cpp | 114
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_visitor.cpp
>> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_visitor.cpp
>> index 853c3ee..85490bb 100644
>> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_visitor.cpp
>> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_visitor.cpp
>
>> + vec4_instruction *inst;
>> + switch (ir->op) {
>> + case ir_tex:
>
> Isn't this one invalid for vertex shaders, too?
Nope. From the GLSL 1.30 spec, page 80 (86 in the PDF):
"The implicit level of detail is selected as follows: For a texture that
is not mip-mapped, the texture is used directly. If it is mip-mapped
and running in a fragment shader, the LOD computed by the implementation
is used to do the texture lookup. If it is mip-mapped and running on
the vertex shader, then the base texture is used."
So ir_tex is equivalent to ir_txl with lod 0.
>> + case ir_txl:
>> + inst = new(mem_ctx) vec4_instruction(this, SHADER_OPCODE_TXL);
>> + break;
>> + case ir_txd:
>> + inst = new(mem_ctx) vec4_instruction(this, SHADER_OPCODE_TXD);
>> + break;
>> + case ir_txf:
>> + inst = new(mem_ctx) vec4_instruction(this, SHADER_OPCODE_TXF);
>> + break;
>> + case ir_txs:
>> + inst = new(mem_ctx) vec4_instruction(this, SHADER_OPCODE_TXS);
>> + break;
>> + case ir_txb:
>> + assert(!"TXB is not valid for vertex shaders.");
>> + }
>
>> + /* Load the LOD info */
>> + if (ir->op == ir_txl) {
>> + ir->lod_info.lod->accept(this);
>> + int mrf, writemask;
>> + if (intel->gen >= 5) {
>> + mrf = param_base + 1;
>> + writemask = ir->shadow_comparitor ? WRITEMASK_Y : WRITEMASK_X;
>> + inst->mlen++;
>> + } else /* intel->gen == 4 */ {
>> + mrf = param_base;
>> + writemask = WRITEMASK_Z;
>> + }
>> + emit(MOV(dst_reg(MRF, mrf, ir->lod_info.lod->type, writemask),
>> + this->result));
>
> I'd move the accept down next to the MOV. I'm always afraid of the
> hidden return data from accept getting trashed before it gets consumed.
> I wish the visitor stuff let us do the sensible thing and produce a
> return value.
I totally agree - they used to be right next to each other before I
added the Gen4 code. I'll move it.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
