On 10/10/18 10:34 AM, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 10/10/18 7:25 pm, Samuel Pitoiset wrote:
On 10/10/18 10:14 AM, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 10/10/18 6:44 pm, Samuel Pitoiset wrote:
We shouldn't try to compact any varyings known as always
active IO, especially XFB outputs. For example, if one
comp
On 10/10/18 7:25 pm, Samuel Pitoiset wrote:
On 10/10/18 10:14 AM, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 10/10/18 6:44 pm, Samuel Pitoiset wrote:
We shouldn't try to compact any varyings known as always
active IO, especially XFB outputs. For example, if one
component of an xfb output is also used as input va
On 10/10/18 10:14 AM, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 10/10/18 6:44 pm, Samuel Pitoiset wrote:
We shouldn't try to compact any varyings known as always
active IO, especially XFB outputs. For example, if one
component of an xfb output is also used as input varying
in the next stage, it shouldn't be co
On 10/10/18 6:44 pm, Samuel Pitoiset wrote:
We shouldn't try to compact any varyings known as always
active IO, especially XFB outputs. For example, if one
component of an xfb output is also used as input varying
in the next stage, it shouldn't be compacted.
Because we look at the input varyings
We shouldn't try to compact any varyings known as always
active IO, especially XFB outputs. For example, if one
component of an xfb output is also used as input varying
in the next stage, it shouldn't be compacted.
Because we look at the input varyings from the consumer
stage, we don't know if one
