On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaeh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22.08.2017 16:56, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> >> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Roland Scheidegger <srol...@vmware.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> I am probably missing something here, but why do you need a new register >>> file? Since you couldn't use LOAD with TGSI_FILE_CONSTANT before, can't >>> you just allow LOAD with TGSI_FILE_CONSTANT and achieve the same thing? >>> Or do you need to know how it's going to be accessed in advance? >> >> >> With bindless, LOAD can take a CONST I believe [which contains the >> value of the bindless id]. I think it's nice to keep those concepts >> separate... having CONST sometimes mean the value and other times mean >> the address is a bit weird. This way CONSTBUF[0] is the address of the >> 0th constbuf. > > > I'm still not quite convinced. The levels of indirection should clarify the > meaning, shouldn't they? > > You get > > LOAD dst, CONST[0][0], IMM[0] > > when loading from offset IMM[0] of a bindless buffer whose handle is at the > beginning of the buffer CONST[0]. > > You get > > LOAD dst, CONST[0], IMM[0] > > when loading from offset IMM[0] of non-bindless buffer 0. > > Is there ever really a situation where the two could be confused?
I always considered CONST[0] == CONST[0][0]. Technically they're not, since once has the second dimension in the TGSI encoding while the other doesn't. But practically, MOV TEMP[0], CONST[0] and MOV TEMP[0], CONST[0][0] are in every way identical. Currently st/mesa will just use CONST[0] everywhere, never adding the 2nd dimension. As such, I don't think we should start having behavioural differences for those on some instructions. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
