On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:00:49 +0100, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Paul Berry <stereotype...@gmail.com> wrote: > > (c) Do nothing, and rely on programmers to remember that RasterDiscard is an > > exception to the usual correspondence between dirty bits and substructures > > of gl_context. > > > > I'm really not comfortable with (c) because of the risk of future bugs. I > > suppose I could be talked into (b) if there's popular support for it, but > > it's not my favourite, because as I said earlier, I think there are actually > > a lot of good reasons to think of rasterizer discard as related to transform > > feedback. My preference is to do (a). > > (d) Rework the _NEW_* flags such that they roughly match hardware > state groups, not OpenGL state groups. Direct3D 11 and Gallium are two > examples of how it could be done.
The problem is that everyone disagrees on what "hardware state group" a piece of state is in. On i965, rasterizer discard is really in the transform feedback state -- the SOL (transform feedback) unit on gen7, and the GS on gen6.
pgpAWYgOwtiRd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
