On 11/1/18 11:59 AM, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 07:49 +0200, Tapani Pälli wrote:
On 10/31/18 7:03 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:37 PM Erik Faye-Lund
wrote:
On Wed, 2018-10-31 at 12:01 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
I had to do a double (or triple) take on
On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 07:49 +0200, Tapani Pälli wrote:
>
> On 10/31/18 7:03 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:37 PM Erik Faye-Lund
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2018-10-31 at 12:01 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> > > > I had to do a double (or triple) take on this logic as well.
On 10/31/18 7:03 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:37 PM Erik Faye-Lund
wrote:
On Wed, 2018-10-31 at 12:01 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
I had to do a double (or triple) take on this logic as well. Part of
the subtlety is that the fallback only applies for ES when there's a
matc
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:37 PM Erik Faye-Lund
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2018-10-31 at 12:01 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> > I had to do a double (or triple) take on this logic as well. Part of
> > the subtlety is that the fallback only applies for ES when there's a
> > match but no exact match. Probably
On Wed, 2018-10-31 at 12:01 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> I had to do a double (or triple) take on this logic as well. Part of
> the subtlety is that the fallback only applies for ES when there's a
> match but no exact match. Probably good to mention this.
Yeah, that makes sense. I thought I mention
I had to do a double (or triple) take on this logic as well. Part of
the subtlety is that the fallback only applies for ES when there's a
match but no exact match. Probably good to mention this.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:13 AM Erik Faye-Lund
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2018-10-31 at 15:46 +0200, Tapani Pä
On Wed, 2018-10-31 at 15:46 +0200, Tapani Pälli wrote:
>
> On 10/30/18 7:11 PM, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> > In GLES, we currently either need an exact match with a local
> > function,
> > or an exact match with a builtin.
> >
> > However, if we add support for implicit conversions for GLES
> > shad
On 10/30/18 7:11 PM, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
In GLES, we currently either need an exact match with a local function,
or an exact match with a builtin.
However, if we add support for implicit conversions for GLES shaders,
we also need to fall back to a non-exact match in the case where there
were
In GLES, we currently either need an exact match with a local function,
or an exact match with a builtin.
However, if we add support for implicit conversions for GLES shaders,
we also need to fall back to a non-exact match in the case where there
were no builtin match either.
Luckily, we already
