On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Keith Whitwell <kei...@vmware.com> wrote: > This seems like a very different idea of semantics. These aren't intended to > be hardware resources, and there is no concept of querying the driver to > figure out how many the hardware supports. Further, the indices for > different semantic names are considered to be disjoint, permitting FOG[0], > COLOR[0] and GENERIC[0], each of which would potentially consume an > interpolator on some hardware, subverting the idea of a maximum semantic > index.
There would be a maximum semantic index for each semantic type. Note this is exactly like the existing OpenGL limit on fragment.texcoord[i] and how ARBfp/vp work. All APIs as far as I know have such limits, simply because they indeed refer to hardware resources. Why shouldn't Gallium semantic indices refer to hardware resources too? What is the advantage of using abstract identifiers that the driver needs to map, when no API needs those, and when there is no use for them? (except for slightly simplifying the GLSL implementation at the expense of greater complexity in all drivers) > I think if you want to improve linkage semantics, some of your other > suggestions are more promising. I'd like to dig into those a little more if > that's ok. Yes, sure. Are your referring to the routing tables idea? (actually initially suggested by Corbin Simpson) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com _______________________________________________ Mesa3d-dev mailing list Mesa3d-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mesa3d-dev
