The experiment here is quite a bit different from what the current patch is
proposing (6 shader programs, only drive swizzle and alpha/no-alpha via
uniforms). Benoit is redoing the measurements for that scenario. More data
coming shortly.
Andreas
On Oct 16, 2013, at 7:00 AM, Benoit Jacob wro
2013/10/10 Benoit Jacob
> this is the kind of work that would require very careful performance
> measurements
>
Here is a benchmark:
http://people.mozilla.org/~bjacob/webglbranchingbenchmark/webglbranchingbenchmark.html
Some results:
http://people.mozilla.org/~bjacob/webglbranchingbenchmark/web
2013/10/11 Nicholas Cameron
> The advantage to me is that we have a single shader and avoid the
> combinatorial explosion when we add more shaders for things like SVG
> filters/CSS compositing.
[...snip...]
>
> I have not recently been discussing new shaders, perhaps you are thinking
> of msta
On Friday, October 11, 2013 5:50:05 AM UTC+13, Benoit Girard wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Andreas Gal wrote:
>
>
>
> > Rationale:
>
> > switching shaders tends to be expensive.
>
> >
>
>
>
> In my opinion this is the only argument for working on this at moment.
>
I think alm
> To: "Benoit Jacob"
> Cc: "Benoit Girard" , dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org,
> "Andreas Gal"
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 11:23:45 AM
> Subject: Re: unified shader for layer rendering
>
> I do appreciate the fact that it reduces complexity (i
I didn't see anything in this message that suggested "we should drop everything
we're doing and start on this right now", but most of the early comments I'm
seeing are commenting on that. Let's make that a separate discussion.
If we didn't have all these variations, what would we do? Would we
"
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 11:23:45 AM
Subject: Re: unified shader for layer rendering
I do appreciate the fact that it reduces complexity (in addition to less
state changes).
I agree that the decision of dedicating resources on that rather than on
other high priority projects that a
I do appreciate the fact that it reduces complexity (in addition to less
state changes).
I agree that the decision of dedicating resources on that rather than on
other high priority projects that are in the pipes should be motivated by
some numbers.
Cheers,
Nical
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:0
2013/10/10 Benoit Jacob
> I'll pile on what Benoit G said --- this is the kind of work that would
> require very careful performance measurements before we commit to it.
>
> Also, like Benoit said, we have seen no indication that glUseProgram is
> hurting us. General GPU "wisdom" is that switchin
I'll pile on what Benoit G said --- this is the kind of work that would
require very careful performance measurements before we commit to it.
Also, like Benoit said, we have seen no indication that glUseProgram is
hurting us. General GPU "wisdom" is that switching programs is not per se
expensive
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Andreas Gal wrote:
> Rationale:
> switching shaders tends to be expensive.
>
In my opinion this is the only argument for working on this at moment.
Particularly at the moment where we're overwhelmed with high priority
desktop and mobile graphics work, I'd like to
11 matches
Mail list logo
