Am 18.07.2012 07:59, schrieb Olivier Galibert:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 03:41:44PM -0600, Brian Paul wrote:
>> On 07/13/2012 10:30 AM, Olivier Galibert wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 08:33:38AM -0600, Brian Paul wrote:
Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that we need to support per-pixel LOD
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 03:41:44PM -0600, Brian Paul wrote:
> On 07/13/2012 10:30 AM, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 08:33:38AM -0600, Brian Paul wrote:
> >> Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that we need to support per-pixel LOD
> >> selection. For softpipe, Olivier's big patch
On 07/13/2012 10:30 AM, Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 08:33:38AM -0600, Brian Paul wrote:
Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that we need to support per-pixel LOD
selection. For softpipe, Olivier's big patch looks good.
... and then nothing happened. Ping? The only code remar
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 08:33:38AM -0600, Brian Paul wrote:
> Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that we need to support per-pixel LOD
> selection. For softpipe, Olivier's big patch looks good.
... and then nothing happened. Ping? The only code remark was a
whitespace issue on one line :-)
> Fo
On 06/21/2012 08:30 AM, Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 01:44:14PM +0100, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
A lot of code I just glossed over it, but seems to look ok other than
the (performance) implications this might have.
Actually whether there's a performance implication is not ob
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 01:44:14PM +0100, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
> A lot of code I just glossed over it, but seems to look ok other than
> the (performance) implications this might have.
Actually whether there's a performance implication is not obvious. In
practice the code just kicks the 4-p
- Original Message -
> On 06/20/2012 06:39 AM, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
> > On 06/20/2012 05:43 AM, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 02:46:35PM -0700, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> >>> Could you give more background on why is this necessary?
> >>>
> >>> This will make softwar
On 06/20/2012 06:39 AM, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
On 06/20/2012 05:43 AM, Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 02:46:35PM -0700, Jose Fonseca wrote:
Could you give more background on why is this necessary?
This will make software renderering slower, so I'd really like to
avoid it on
On 06/20/2012 05:43 AM, Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 02:46:35PM -0700, Jose Fonseca wrote:
Could you give more background on why is this necessary?
This will make software renderering slower, so I'd really like to avoid it on
llvmpipe if at all possible.
Well, given the ex
On 06/19/2012 08:01 PM, Olivier Galibert wrote:
This patch churns a lot because it needs to change 4-wide filters into
single pixel filters, since each fragment may use a different filter.
The only case not entirely supported is the anisotropic filtering.
Not sure what we want to do there, since
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 02:46:35PM -0700, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> Could you give more background on why is this necessary?
>
> This will make software renderering slower, so I'd really like to avoid it on
> llvmpipe if at all possible.
Well, given the existence of textureLod and textureGrad every
11 matches
Mail list logo
