On 14 November 2014 16:36, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > Is there a different form that you believe would be more likely to be merged? > The main issue is probably that we'd really like to avoid having two parallel implementations of the high-level d3d9 stuff. I.e., anything dealing with (d3d9) devices, stateblocks, swapchains, etc. We'd potentially be open to using something closer to the Gallium interface instead of OpenGL on the backend in wined3d. In that scenario wined3d would essentially be the statetracker. The main issue with that approach has always been that the Gallium statetracker/driver interface isn't meant to be stable, and neither is the internal interface between wined3d and e.g. d3d9. (So it wouldn't help to e.g. move wined3d into the Mesa tree either.)
Another consideration is that while the Gallium interface is a better match than OpenGL for Direct3D in some places, I'm not necessarily convinced that that's something that couldn't be fixed with appropriate GL extensions. To give an example, it's possible that translating D3D bytecode to TGSI instead of GLSL ends up with better shader code for the hardware. Unfortunately that kind of analysis is completely missing as far as I'm aware, but if that were the case, it would probably be fixable by making some improvements to the GLSL compiler. If that's not possible for some reason we could consider adding an extension for authoring shaders in TGSI instead of GLSL, and so on. I guess the basic point is that replacing OpenGL is a pretty big hammer, that would need corresponding amounts of analysis and justification. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
