Hi ilia, On Tue, 2015-09-29 at 03:53 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > Hi Samuel, and any other onlookers, > > I was wondering why the decision was made to stick SSBO's onto the > same list as constbufs. Seems like they're entirely separate entities, > no? Perhaps I'm missing something?
The reason for this was that there is a lot of code in the compiler to handle uniform blocks and all the rules for them and we needed the same treatment for SSBOs, so that seemed like a reasonable way forward to reuse a lot of the code in the compiler front end. I think the only place where we needed to make explicit distinctions is when we check for resource limits, since these are different for UBOs and SSBOs of course. Although UBOs and SSBOs are separate entities they have a lot of similarities too, so that did not look like a terrible idea, considering the benefits. If I remember correctly, Jordan suggested that we might want to change the names of the structures/files involved so they do not refer to UBOs explicitly and use something more generic instead, but that would be a very large change affecting the compiler (and all the drivers) and we thought it would be best to do that at some other moment, after the series landed, to avoid being stuck in rebase hell for months. Iago > Thanks, > > -ilia > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
