On 10 November 2015 10:06:49 pm AEDT, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> >wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Tapani Pälli ><tapani.pa...@intel.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 09/15/2015 12:43 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> >wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> >>>>> --- >>>>> src/glsl/builtin_variables.cpp | 3 +++ >>>>> src/glsl/shader_enums.h | 1 + >>>>> src/mesa/state_tracker/st_glsl_to_tgsi.cpp | 1 + >>>>> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/src/glsl/builtin_variables.cpp >>>>> b/src/glsl/builtin_variables.cpp >>>>> index b5e2908..7ea5db8 100644 >>>>> --- a/src/glsl/builtin_variables.cpp >>>>> +++ b/src/glsl/builtin_variables.cpp >>>>> @@ -1050,6 +1050,9 @@ >>>>> builtin_variable_generator::generate_fs_special_vars() >>>>> add_input(VARYING_SLOT_LAYER, int_t, "gl_Layer"); >>>>> add_input(VARYING_SLOT_VIEWPORT, int_t, >"gl_ViewportIndex"); >>>>> } >>>>> + >>>>> + if (state->is_version(450, 310)) >>>> >>>> >>>> Hmmm... this should probably be >>>> >>>> state->ARB_ES3_1_compatibility_enable || state->is_version(450, >310). >>>> >>>> Since that doesn't exist, perhaps i should just add it in /* ... */ >to >>>> be uncommented later? Or I guess I could go in and add all of those >>>> ext enables in. What do people think? It's easy enough to do any of >>>> these. >>> >>> >>> IMO comments would be enough for now, we can worry about >ES3_1_compatibility >>> when we have 3.1 done. >> >> OK, that was my feeling as well. >> >>> >>>>> + add_system_value(SYSTEM_VALUE_FRAG_HELPER, bool_t, >>>>> "gl_HelperInvocation"); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/src/glsl/shader_enums.h b/src/glsl/shader_enums.h >>>>> index 7c598b6..6bc93a5 100644 >>>>> --- a/src/glsl/shader_enums.h >>>>> +++ b/src/glsl/shader_enums.h >>>>> @@ -352,6 +352,7 @@ typedef enum >>>>> SYSTEM_VALUE_SAMPLE_ID, >>>>> SYSTEM_VALUE_SAMPLE_POS, >>>>> SYSTEM_VALUE_SAMPLE_MASK_IN, >>>>> + SYSTEM_VALUE_FRAG_HELPER, >>> >>> >>> Why not call it SYSTEM_VALUE_HELPER_INVOCATION? Most builtin >variables are >>> named with matching names to spec. >> >> I didn't want something so unnecessarily long. Here are some >counterexamples: >> >> .... >> >> I could have sworn there were some, but apparently not :) The >> VARYING_SLOT_* are a lot more counter-example-ish, like >> VARYING_SLOT_POS, VARYING_SLOT_FACE, VARYING_SLOT_PNTC, etc. >> >> Anyone else have thoughts on how these should be named? > >ES 3.1 appears to be getting closer to reality... probably good to >close this one out... Reviews/opinions welcome.
I like using the full name too. I guess you could always change these to SYS_VAL_* then its only one char bigger than your suggestion, not sure how big of a change that would be. >_______________________________________________ >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
