On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Christoph Bumiller
<e0425...@student.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>
> DCL TEMP[0..3] = "array" without indirect access (registers)
> DCL TEMP[4..12] = indirectly accessed array
> DCL TEMP[12..20] = another indirectly accessed array
> DCL IMM[0] { -2, 0, 0, 0 }
>
> fill with data:
> MOV TEMP[4], IN[1]
> MOV TEMP[5], IN[2]
> etc.
>
> indirect move with address (IN[0].x - 2) from array TEMP[4..12] to output:
> UADD TEMP[0].x, IN[0].x, IMM[0].x <- added here explicitly instead of
> using (4 - IMM[0].x == 2) in the MOV below
> UARL ADDR[0].x, TEMP[0].x
> MOV OUT[1], TEMP[ADDR[0].x + 4] <- must be 4 here to identify the
> array/range (iff there is indirect addressing)I don't like this. It looks hackish. I think it would be better to have the array clearly specified in the declaration and in the instruction. For example like this: DCL TEMP[0][0..3] = "array" without indirect access (registers) DCL TEMP[1][0..7] = indirectly accessed array DCL TEMP[2][0..7] = another indirectly accessed array DCL TEMP[3] = ill-formed declaration And in the instruction: MOV OUT[1], TEMP[1][ADDR[0].x] That said, I don't know how the temporary array file is implemented in TGSI. I would have to see some TGSI shader code first. If it's implemented just like my example shows, then I'm all for it and we can later deprecate the TEMPORARY file once all drivers support TEMPORARY_ARRAY. Marek _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
