On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Connor Abbott <cwabbo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Jose Fonseca <jfons...@vmware.com> wrote: >> On 18/08/14 14:21, Marek Olšák wrote: >> Once these are in place, all development effort to go on to >> improving/leveraging the new IR. We could deprecate TGSI when it would have >> few users. > > Also, switching to LLVM, NIR, or some other IR that uses SSA (or at > least modifying TGSI to support it) seems like something that's really > necessary for the Gallium folks. Soon, considering most backends > already use SSA in one form or another, the situation will look like: > > GLSL IR -> NIR -> NIR with SSA -> optimizations -> NIR without SSA -> > TGSI -> backend without SSA -> backend with SSA > > So backends would have to duplicate the into-SSA logic and every > shader would have to pay the penalty of being converted out of and > then back into SSA thanks to TGSI not supporting it.
Looking at it another way, perhaps we should just accept that backends will want to do their own things, and try to minimize the damage by doing GLSL IR -> transport ir -> backend Are you envisioning a world where every backend uses NIR, and uses some sort of shared register allocation/spilling/etc logic, configurable instruction lists, pluggable with lowering passes? By then you've invented LLVM... -ilia _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
