----- Original Message ----- > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Christian König > <deathsim...@vodafone.de> wrote: > > Am 12.03.2013 02:48, schrieb Marek Olšák: > > > >> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Christian König > >> <deathsim...@vodafone.de> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi everybody, > >>> > >>> this problem has been open for quite some time now, with a bunch of > >>> different > >>> opinions and sometimes even patches floating on the list. > >>> > >>> The solutions proposed or implemented so far all more or less incomplete, > >>> so > >>> this approach was designed in mind with both completeness and > >>> compatibility > >>> with existing code. > >>> > >>> Over all it's just an implementation of what Tom Stellard named solution > >>> #4 in > >>> this eMail thread: > >>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2013-January/033264.html > >> > >> Hi Christian, > >> > >> this is definitely not the solution #4. According to the TGSI dump > >> Christoph posted, it looks more like #3. > > > > > > Well, for me the main difference between proposal #3 and #4 is that #3 > > tries > > to identify the declaration to use with the supplied "offset", while #4 > > uses > > a completely distinct identifier for that. > > > > > >> The solution #4 completely changes the temporary file such that it > >> becomes two-dimensional with the first index being a literal and the > >> second index being either a literal or ADDR[literal], and it would > >> always be like that regardless of whether drivers support that or not. > >> One-dimensional indexing of TEMP is not allowed. For backward > >> compatibility, the drivers that do not support it would only get a > >> single array declaration TEMP[0][0..n] and TEMP[0][...] would be > >> everywhere in the code. > > > > > > Ok, then I misunderstood you a bit, but I don't think the difference is so > > much. > > > > What I'm proposing is that we have an optional "ArrayID" attached to each > > declaration and refer to this "ArrayID" in the indirect addressing operand. > > To sum it up declarations should look something like this: > > > > DCL TEMP[0..3] // normal registers > > DCL TEMP[1][4..11] // indirectly accessed array > > DCL TEMP[2][12..15] // another indirectly accessed array > > DCL TEMP[16..17] LOCAL // local registers > > > > While an indirect operand might look like this: > > > > MOV TEMP[16], TEMP[1][ADDR[0].x-13] > > > > On the pro side for this approach is that it is compatible with all the > > existing state trackers and driver, and we don't need to generate different > > code depending on weather or not the driver supports this. > > In that case, it would be better to avoid using the operator [] and > use something else, because it has nothing to do with indexing.
Note that [] operator is also used for const buffer selection. Jose _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
