On 02/06/2014 09:34 PM, Connor Abbott wrote:
Hi,
So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
that GLSL IR currently uses for shaders needs to go.
[snip]
Hi Connor!
I agree 100%. The current tree IR is nice as a simplified AST of sorts,
but it's really not at all
For those interested Ian's talk is available here:
http://video.fosdem.org/2014/H1301_Cornil/Saturday/Three_Years_Experience_with_a_Treelike_Shader_IR.webm
On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 00:34 -0500, Connor Abbott wrote:
Hi,
So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
that
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Connor Abbott cwabbo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
that GLSL IR currently uses for shaders needs to go. For the benefit
of those that didn't watch Ian Romanick's talk at FOSDEM, I'll
reiterate
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 6:34 AM, Connor Abbott cwabbo...@gmail.com wrote:
- It turns out that the original advantage of a tree-based IR, to be
able to automatically generate pattern-matching code for optimizing
certain code patterns, only really matters for CPU's with weird
instruction sets
Am 07.02.2014 16:49, schrieb Alex Deucher:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Connor Abbott cwabbo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
that GLSL IR currently uses for shaders needs to go. For the benefit
of those that didn't watch Ian
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 05:20:12PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
Am 07.02.2014 16:49, schrieb Alex Deucher:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Connor Abbott cwabbo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
that GLSL IR currently uses for
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:49:01AM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Connor Abbott cwabbo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
that GLSL IR currently uses for shaders needs to go. For the benefit
of those
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Christian König
deathsim...@vodafone.de wrote:
Am 07.02.2014 16:49, schrieb Alex Deucher:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Connor Abbott cwabbo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
that GLSL IR
On 02/07/2014 07:49 AM, Alex Deucher wrote:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Connor Abbott cwabbo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
that GLSL IR currently uses for shaders needs to go. For the benefit
of those that didn't watch Ian
On 02/06/2014 09:34 PM, Connor Abbott wrote:
Hi,
So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
that GLSL IR currently uses for shaders needs to go. For the benefit
of those that didn't watch Ian Romanick's talk at FOSDEM, I'll
reiterate some of the problems with it
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 02:52:15PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Christian König
deathsim...@vodafone.de wrote:
Am 07.02.2014 16:49, schrieb Alex Deucher:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Connor Abbott cwabbo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
So I believe that we
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Ian Romanick i...@freedesktop.org wrote:
On 02/06/2014 09:34 PM, Connor Abbott wrote:
Hi,
So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
that GLSL IR currently uses for shaders needs to go. For the benefit
of those that didn't watch Ian
Hi,
So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
that GLSL IR currently uses for shaders needs to go. For the benefit
of those that didn't watch Ian Romanick's talk at FOSDEM, I'll
reiterate some of the problems with it as of now:
- All the ir_dereference chains blow up
13 matches
Mail list logo
