On 29 July 2015 at 13:46, Timothy Arceri <t_arc...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Wed, 2015-07-29 at 09:57 +0200, Iago Toral wrote: >> On Sun, 2015-07-26 at 18:35 +1000, Timothy Arceri wrote: >> > Since commit c0cd5b var->data.binding was being used as a replacement >> > for atomic buffer index, but they don't have to be the same value they >> > just happen to end up the same when binding is 0. >> > >> > Now we store atomic buffer index in the unused var->data.index >> > to avoid the extra memory of putting back the atmoic buffer index field. >> >> Could this be a bit too restrictive? var->data.index has only a single >> bit of storage, so this would limit the number of buffers we can index >> to 2. > > Your right I wasn't paying enough attention, the nir struct doesn't place the > same limits on index (although maybe it should) and I didn't notice it in the > glsl ir. > > I have a new solution on the way as part on V3 of my AoA work, however its not > really suitable for stable. > > If we want this fix in stable maybe putting back the atomic_index struct > member is the best solution after all. > I guess we can/should drop this from the queue, or is it something still worthy for stable ? If so, can anyone let me know of the requirements (commit name and/or sha should be great).
Thanks, Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
