Am 23.08.2017 um 15:49 schrieb Ilia Mirkin: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaeh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 22.08.2017 16:56, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Roland Scheidegger <srol...@vmware.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I am probably missing something here, but why do you need a new register >>>> file? Since you couldn't use LOAD with TGSI_FILE_CONSTANT before, can't >>>> you just allow LOAD with TGSI_FILE_CONSTANT and achieve the same thing? >>>> Or do you need to know how it's going to be accessed in advance? >>> >>> >>> With bindless, LOAD can take a CONST I believe [which contains the >>> value of the bindless id]. I think it's nice to keep those concepts >>> separate... having CONST sometimes mean the value and other times mean >>> the address is a bit weird. This way CONSTBUF[0] is the address of the >>> 0th constbuf. >> >> >> I'm still not quite convinced. The levels of indirection should clarify the >> meaning, shouldn't they? >> >> You get >> >> LOAD dst, CONST[0][0], IMM[0] >> >> when loading from offset IMM[0] of a bindless buffer whose handle is at the >> beginning of the buffer CONST[0]. >> >> You get >> >> LOAD dst, CONST[0], IMM[0] >> >> when loading from offset IMM[0] of non-bindless buffer 0. >> >> Is there ever really a situation where the two could be confused? > > I always considered CONST[0] == CONST[0][0]. Technically they're not, > since once has the second dimension in the TGSI encoding while the > other doesn't. But practically, > > MOV TEMP[0], CONST[0] > > and > > MOV TEMP[0], CONST[0][0] > > are in every way identical. Currently st/mesa will just use CONST[0] > everywhere, never adding the 2nd dimension. Maybe it would be worth the effort to fix this?
Roland As such, I don't think we > should start having behavioural differences for those on some > instructions. > _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
