On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Jose Fonseca <jfons...@vmware.com> wrote: > On 04/06/15 19:50, Rob Clark wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Jose Fonseca <jfons...@vmware.com> wrote: >>> >>> I think we had a discussion about this on mesa3d-dev a while ago. I >>> don't >>> recall the conclusions but I wish I did. >>> >>> We have tgsi_return_type. Why isn't this enough? Or better, why isn't >>> being used for this? >> >> >> mostly arbitrary reasons.. the unorm/snorm values don't really make >> sense here, so it didn't quite seem to fit (plus would have needed >> another bit, although I guess that isn't really an issue) >> >> Or if the question was, why not include the type information in the >> decl rather than the instr? Well.. that at least is more awkward for >> the implementation, since the information is part of the instruction >> for both GLSL IR and NIR (and at the end of the day, that is also >> where I need the info in my compiler) > > > IIUC, GLSL also has this information readily available in the sampler > declaration: > > uniform sampler2D ftex; > uniform isampler2D itex; > uniform usampler2D utex; > > So isn't this a double standard? After all, if the argument here is > > "GLSL IR / NIR has this info readily available, so let's pass it to the > TGSI", > > then the same rationale should apply to > > "GLSL has this info readily available on the sampler declaration, so lets' > pass it to GLSL IR/NIR 's declarations." >
ok, possibly GLSL IR has this info also in the decl.. tbh I'm not a GLSL IR expert. I just figured out my way around since I know where I want the info in NIR, and then looked at where it came from in glsl_to_nir. But at any rate, NIR only has it on the tex instruction. So my point about having it in the decl making it more akward for tgsi-to-nir and my compiler still stands. ;-) > > I want to avoid having two places for this info in TGSI: in decl and in > instruction, as that's a recipe for bugs and complexity. _Specially_ when > the decl is imposed for D3D10 support, while the inst is mere a matter of > internal Mesa convention... > having the information duplicated (or at least in the instruction) is more convenient for the consumer of tgsi. If you are worried about bugs/inconsistencies then something similar to nir_validate_shader() for tgsi would have seemed like a better direction. BR, -R > > In short, I'm fine in in principle with piping this info through, but lets > come up a decent generalization. In particular, lets try get this in the > decls so it's consistent. > > > Jose > _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
