On 02/06/2014 09:34 PM, Connor Abbott wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
> that GLSL IR currently uses for shaders needs to go.
[snip]
Hi Connor!
I agree 100%. The current tree IR is nice as a simplified AST of sorts,
but it's really not at al
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 02/06/2014 09:34 PM, Connor Abbott wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
>> that GLSL IR currently uses for shaders needs to go. For the benefit
>> of those that didn't watch Ian Romanick's
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 02:52:15PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Christian König
> wrote:
> > Am 07.02.2014 16:49, schrieb Alex Deucher:
> >
> >> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Connor Abbott
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> So I believe that we can all agree
On 02/06/2014 09:34 PM, Connor Abbott wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
> that GLSL IR currently uses for shaders needs to go. For the benefit
> of those that didn't watch Ian Romanick's talk at FOSDEM, I'll
> reiterate some of the problems with
On 02/07/2014 07:49 AM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Connor Abbott wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
>> that GLSL IR currently uses for shaders needs to go. For the benefit
>> of those that didn't watch Ian Romanick'
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Christian König
wrote:
> Am 07.02.2014 16:49, schrieb Alex Deucher:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Connor Abbott
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
>>> that GLSL IR currently uses for shaders
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:49:01AM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Connor Abbott wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
> > that GLSL IR currently uses for shaders needs to go. For the benefit
> > of those that did
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 05:20:12PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> Am 07.02.2014 16:49, schrieb Alex Deucher:
> >On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Connor Abbott wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
> >>that GLSL IR currently uses for shaders
Am 07.02.2014 16:49, schrieb Alex Deucher:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Connor Abbott wrote:
Hi,
So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
that GLSL IR currently uses for shaders needs to go. For the benefit
of those that didn't watch Ian Romanick's talk at FOSD
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 6:34 AM, Connor Abbott wrote:
> - It turns out that the original advantage of a tree-based IR, to be
> able to automatically generate pattern-matching code for optimizing
> certain code patterns, only really matters for CPU's with weird
> instruction sets with lots of exotic
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Connor Abbott wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
> that GLSL IR currently uses for shaders needs to go. For the benefit
> of those that didn't watch Ian Romanick's talk at FOSDEM, I'll
> reiterate some of the prob
For those interested Ian's talk is available here:
http://video.fosdem.org/2014/H1301_Cornil/Saturday/Three_Years_Experience_with_a_Treelike_Shader_IR.webm
On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 00:34 -0500, Connor Abbott wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
> tha
Hi,
So I believe that we can all agree that the tree-based representation
that GLSL IR currently uses for shaders needs to go. For the benefit
of those that didn't watch Ian Romanick's talk at FOSDEM, I'll
reiterate some of the problems with it as of now:
- All the ir_dereference chains blow up t
13 matches
Mail list logo
