On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Instead of the complicated and broken-by-design pile of heuristics we had >>>>> before, we now have a straightforward lowering: >>>>> >>>>> 1) All header sources are copied directly using force_writemask_all and, >>>>> since they are guaranteed to be a single register, there are no >>>>> force_sechalf issues. >>>>> >>>>> 2) All non-header sources are copied using the exact same force_sechalf >>>>> and saturate modifiers as the LOAD_PAYLOAD operation itself. >>>> >>>> Let's not do this. Nothing puts a saturate modifier on LOAD_PAYLOAD >>>> today, and it is kind of confusing about what it means. Can't we have >>>> fbwrites that write depth as well. I wouldn't think we wanted to >>>> saturate that. >>> >>> Sure. I can drop saturate and just assert that it's not set. We do >>> want to keep force_sechalf and force_writemask_all though. >> >> I didn't think about those before, but I don't know how a load_payload >> could have force_writemask_all set. Have I missed something? > > No, no one (to my knowlege) sets force_writemask_all on it but I see > no reason why it shouldn't be respected. As for saturate, we do for > fb_writes when key->clamp_fragment_color is set. > --Jason
In your last email in this thread, I thought we'd agreed not to do anything (i.e., not allow) saturate on load_payload. Handling it seems confusing and moreover, unnecessary. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
