On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 15:49 -0700, Jordan Justen wrote: > On 2015-05-14 07:06:03, Iago Toral Quiroga wrote: > > Because SSBOs are very similar to UBOs the implementation attempts to > > reuse the code we already have for UBOs wherever we can. There is a lot > > of code in the GLSL compiler to deal with UBOs, so we do not want to > > exactly duplicate that. An "is buffer" flag is added if needed when > > Isn't UBO uniform buffer object? > https://www.opengl.org/registry/specs/ARB/uniform_buffer_object.txt > > So, maybe 'is uniform' or 'is shared storage' would be better?
Yeah, we can use is_shader_storage instead of is_buffer. > > reusing UBO data structures so we can tell if a given instance > > represents uniforms or buffers. > > Yeah, I guess 'interface blocks' are what UBO's generalized into. > > This series leverages the UBO code for SSBO, but I think it would be > nice to rename shared data structures to reflect the common interface > block name. > > For example: > struct gl_uniform_block => struct gl_iblk_buffer > > struct gl_shader::UniformBlocks => IblkBuffers > > lower_ubo_reference => lower_iblk_buffer_reference > > Regarding sharing gl_shader::UniformBlocks with UBO and SSBOs, is this > a good idea? I guess I can't see a problem using the same array for > both, but it would be less confusing if we renamed it to a more > generic name. > > I think this series could get stuck in rebase hell unless we all agree > beforehand what names make sense. Maybe based on that we should just > leave a potential rename until after SSBO lands. Right, I thought about it but decided not to change anything in the end because of this. I think it would be much easier to do this after the series lands and once we have an agreement on the new naming. Iago > Ian, > > What do you think? > > -Jordan > _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
