On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> FWIW I would very much prefer that things like this stay at the GLSL
>> IR level, otherwise we'll have to duplicate it in st/mesa (or do it at
>> the GLSL IR level).
>
> That's why you sh
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> FWIW I would very much prefer that things like this stay at the GLSL
> IR level, otherwise we'll have to duplicate it in st/mesa (or do it at
> the GLSL IR level).
That's why you should start using nir_to_tgsi in st/mesa. :-P
> On Fri, Aug 7,
FWIW I would very much prefer that things like this stay at the GLSL
IR level, otherwise we'll have to duplicate it in st/mesa (or do it at
the GLSL IR level).
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> Out of pure curiosity, why did you choose to do this at the GLSL IR
> level? Why
Out of pure curiosity, why did you choose to do this at the GLSL IR
level? Why not pass it through to NIR and do the lowering there? Not
that you *should* do it there, but I'm curious as to what motivated
the choice. I'm honestly not sure which would have been easier.
--Jason
On Thu, Aug 6, 201
We lower this based on the extension spec formula:
gl_GlobalInvocationID =
gl_WorkGroupID * gl_WorkGroupSize + gl_LocalInvocationID
Suggested-by: Kenneth Graunke
Signed-off-by: Jordan Justen
---
src/glsl/Makefile.sources | 1 +
src/glsl/ir_optimization.h | 1 +
src/gl
