On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Connor Abbott writes:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
>>> Connor Abbott writes:
>>>
Argh, nevermind, I was reading it wrong...
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Connor Abbott wrote:
> What happens
Connor Abbott writes:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> Connor Abbott writes:
>>
>>> Argh, nevermind, I was reading it wrong...
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Connor Abbott wrote:
What happens if you have something like foo = vec3(foo.z, bar.x,
foo.x)
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Connor Abbott writes:
>
>> Argh, nevermind, I was reading it wrong...
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Connor Abbott wrote:
>>> What happens if you have something like foo = vec3(foo.z, bar.x,
>>> foo.x)? I don't think emitting vector m
Connor Abbott writes:
> Argh, nevermind, I was reading it wrong...
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Connor Abbott wrote:
>> What happens if you have something like foo = vec3(foo.z, bar.x,
>> foo.x)? I don't think emitting vector mov's for only the contiguous
>> components is enough.
>>
>> O
Argh, nevermind, I was reading it wrong...
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Connor Abbott wrote:
> What happens if you have something like foo = vec3(foo.z, bar.x,
> foo.x)? I don't think emitting vector mov's for only the contiguous
> components is enough.
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Er
What happens if you have something like foo = vec3(foo.z, bar.x,
foo.x)? I don't think emitting vector mov's for only the contiguous
components is enough.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> It now emits vector MOVs instead of a series of individual MOVs, which
> should be usefu
It now emits vector MOVs instead of a series of individual MOVs, which
should be useful to any vector backends. This pushes the problem of
src/dest aliasing of channels on a scalar chip to the backend, but if
there are any vector operations in your shader then you needed to be
handling this alread