On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Timothy Arceri wrote:
>
>
> On 27 September 2015 6:23:42 am AEST, Ilia Mirkin
> wrote:
>>On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Timothy Arceri
>>wrote:
>>> Since commit c0cd5b var->data.binding was being used as a replacement
>>> for atomic buffer index, but they don'
On 27 September 2015 6:23:42 am AEST, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:02 AM, 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
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:02 AM, 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 that we store the atomic uniform locat
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 that we store the atomic uniform location in var->data.location
we can use this to lookup the atomic bu
