On Thu, 2015-10-08 at 03:01 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Iago Toral <ito...@igalia.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-10-08 at 09:53 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote: > >> On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 09:21 +0200, Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez wrote: > >> > Return the number of values written. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez <sigles...@igalia.com> > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Timothy Arceri <t_arc...@yahoo.com.au> > >> > >> Are you guys going to split SSBO into their own list? There was talk > >> about this recently, but I don't recall what the outcome was. > > > > I sent RFC patches with a proposal but there hasn't been much discussion > > about that yet. Ilia wasn't sure that my proposal was enough. Maybe we > > need to wait a bit so he can progress a bit further and confirm/reject > > this. Ilia, do you have any new thoughts on this subject? > > I'm taking a step back from that work, might take it up again in a > week or two. The best way to approach the issue isn't clear in my > mind, although I suspect that the UBO/SSBO being in a single list > isn't as big of a problem as I originally made it out to be. > > That said, if it did cause things that weren't loops to become loops, > then that'd be unfortunate.
Yes, that happens when we need to resolve certain queries where we need to iterate through the list of UBOs/SSBOs to find the one we want. I don't think this is a real problem in practice though since these lists are going to be small anyway... but having two separate lists would eliminate the need for that and make some code paths in Mesa cleaner. Since it looks that nobody has objections to my RFC I'll put some time into writing an actual series to have separate index spaces, including changes to the i965 backend so we can have at least one driver testing this. Iago _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
