On 10/12/2017 11:14 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 12 October 2017 at 18:22, Tapani Pälli <tapani.pa...@intel.com> wrote:
On 10/12/2017 11:14 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 12 Oct. 2017 15:40, "Tapani Pälli" <tapani.pa...@intel.com
<mailto:tapani.pa...@intel.com>> wrote:
On 10/12/2017 02:34 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
From: Dave Airlie <airl...@redhat.com <mailto:airl...@redhat.com>>
When I realigned the bufferobj code, I didn't see the getters
were different, realign the getters to work the same as ssbo.
Alternatively you could set these values as 0 in
bind_buffer_base_atomic_buffer()? Not sure if it's any better but
then value would match internally what it has been before these
changes.
Before these changes the ssbo and atomic code was gratuitously different,
this is just the last piece of making them consistent.
Right .. what I mean is that before the refactoring Size and Offset values
in the structure were stored as 0, now they are stored as -1 even though
here we return different value. I haven't checked if anything in Mesa would
assume 0 though .. so feel free to ignore my ramblings :) I just wanted to
note this because I tried to fix this and it following change fixes the bug
as well:
For atomics that is true, but for ssbo it was false. The idea of refactoring it
was to align all the code to be same for both, since there is no reason for
differences. Your change would reintroduce differences where none are needed.
My change to get.c aligns the gets
for
GL_ATOMIC_COUNTER_BUFFER_START
GL_ATOMIC_COUNTER_BUFFER_SIZE
with the ones above
for
GL_SHADER_STORAGE_BUFFER_START
GL_SHADER_STORAGE_BUFFER_SIZE
So the code is consistent across both types of buffer.
Right, got it! Thanks;
// Tapani
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
