On Monday 21 May 2007 03:11:28 pm Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > It seems that either the LLVM IR would need some extensions for those
> > things or the back-end code generator/instruction selector would have to
> > look for patterns of scalar instructions and figure out where vector ops
> > should be u
Brian Paul wrote:
> Zack Rusin wrote:
>> On Friday 18 May 2007 05:07:08 am Keith Whitwell wrote:
>>> Sounds good.
>>>
>>> I've been thinking about LLVM and Mesa a little bit the last few days.
>>> If it can be made to work, it seems like a good way to go. There are a
>>> couple of practical issues
Zack Rusin wrote:
> On Friday 18 May 2007 05:07:08 am Keith Whitwell wrote:
>> Sounds good.
>>
>> I've been thinking about LLVM and Mesa a little bit the last few days.
>> If it can be made to work, it seems like a good way to go. There are a
>> couple of practical issues that should be taken into
Zack Rusin wrote:
> On Friday 18 May 2007 05:07:08 am Keith Whitwell wrote:
>> Sounds good.
>>
>> I've been thinking about LLVM and Mesa a little bit the last few days.
>> If it can be made to work, it seems like a good way to go. There are a
>> couple of practical issues that should be taken into
On Friday 18 May 2007 01:53:53 pm Ian Romanick wrote:
> > Yeah, that's where Roberto came in :) We used QLALR which is simply
> > amazing and for those who ever used Bison a lot more convenient than what
> > we had right now.
> >
> > http://labs.trolltech.com/page/Projects/Compilers/QLALR
> >
> > I
On Friday 18 May 2007 05:07:08 am Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Sounds good.
>
> I've been thinking about LLVM and Mesa a little bit the last few days.
> If it can be made to work, it seems like a good way to go. There are a
> couple of practical issues that should be taken into account though:
>
> - Fi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Zack Rusin wrote:
> On Thursday 17 May 2007 05:36:45 pm Keith Whitwell wrote:
I think the Zack/Roberto LLVM tree has done just this. Unfortunately
for this immediate problem, they target a whole new intermediate
representation.
>>> Zack
Brian Paul wrote:
> Zack Rusin wrote:
>> On Thursday 17 May 2007 05:36:45 pm Keith Whitwell wrote:
> I think the Zack/Roberto LLVM tree has done just this. Unfortunately
> for this immediate problem, they target a whole new intermediate
> representation.
Zack, what tools did you u
Zack Rusin wrote:
> On Thursday 17 May 2007 05:36:45 pm Keith Whitwell wrote:
I think the Zack/Roberto LLVM tree has done just this. Unfortunately
for this immediate problem, they target a whole new intermediate
representation.
>>> Zack, what tools did you use for the front-end/pars
Zack Rusin wrote:
> On Thursday 17 May 2007 05:36:45 pm Keith Whitwell wrote:
I think the Zack/Roberto LLVM tree has done just this. Unfortunately
for this immediate problem, they target a whole new intermediate
representation.
>>> Zack, what tools did you use for the front-end/pars
On Thursday 17 May 2007 05:36:45 pm Keith Whitwell wrote:
> >> I think the Zack/Roberto LLVM tree has done just this. Unfortunately
> >> for this immediate problem, they target a whole new intermediate
> >> representation.
> >
> > Zack, what tools did you use for the front-end/parser? I've been
>
Brian Paul wrote:
> Keith Whitwell wrote:
>> Micha? Król wrote:
>>> On 17/05/07, Brian Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Romanick wrote:
> Is there an easy way in this parser generator to change the grammar for
> the TXP instruction? Basically, I want it to be invalid to use TXP
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Whitwell wrote:
> I think the Zack/Roberto LLVM tree has done just this. Unfortunately
> for this immediate problem, they target a whole new intermediate
> representation.
Hmm...that makes me wonder if redoing the parse shouldn't wait until
Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Micha? Król wrote:
>> On 17/05/07, Brian Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Ian Romanick wrote:
Is there an easy way in this parser generator to change the grammar for
the TXP instruction? Basically, I want it to be invalid to use TXP
with
the SHADOWAR
Micha? Król wrote:
> On 17/05/07, Brian Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ian Romanick wrote:
>>> Is there an easy way in this parser generator to change the grammar for
>>> the TXP instruction? Basically, I want it to be invalid to use TXP with
>>> the SHADOWARRAY2D target.
>> Michael would have
On 17/05/07, Brian Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Romanick wrote:
> > Is there an easy way in this parser generator to change the grammar for
> > the TXP instruction? Basically, I want it to be invalid to use TXP with
> > the SHADOWARRAY2D target.
>
> Michael would have to answer that. Mic
Ian Romanick wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Where is the tool to process the .syn files in src/mesa/shader?
See src/mesa/shader/slang/library/Makefile
The syn_to_c program is built there.
> Is there an easy way in this parser generator to change the grammar for
>
On 5/16/07, Ian Romanick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Where is the tool to process the .syn files in src/mesa/shader?
>
> Is there an easy way in this parser generator to change the grammar for
> the TXP instruction? Basically, I want it to be in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Where is the tool to process the .syn files in src/mesa/shader?
Is there an easy way in this parser generator to change the grammar for
the TXP instruction? Basically, I want it to be invalid to use TXP with
the SHADOWARRAY2D target.
Alternately, is
19 matches
Mail list logo
