On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> BTW in cases when both a vertex attrib offset and stride are not a multiple
> of 4, we simply align the formats e.g. R8G8 -> R8G8X8X8 (xy01).
>
Ooops, this is incorrect. It should be "when both a vertex attrib offset and
stride are a multiple
Sorry about the first part of my last email, it shouldn't have been there..
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 6:15 PM, José Fonseca wrote:
> I agree that deriving coarse grained caps from fine grained sounds
> better.
>
> Anyway, I'll apply this on until we have better caps system inplace, as
> it's bette
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 9:15 AM, José Fonseca wrote:
> I agree that deriving coarse grained caps from fine grained sounds
> better.
>
> Anyway, I'll apply this on until we have better caps system inplace, as
> it's better than nothing.
>
> One more question, having the design of these new fine cap
I agree that deriving coarse grained caps from fine grained sounds
better.
Anyway, I'll apply this on until we have better caps system inplace, as
it's better than nothing.
One more question, having the design of these new fine caps in mind, are
the gl_program_constants sufficient?
MaxNativeIn
I was getting at your former idea of replacing caps with feature levels. I
was also commenting on the proposed José's patch that we should have
fine-grained
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Zack Rusin wrote:
> On Thursday 29 April 2010 15:44:35 Marek Olšák wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 8:3
On Thursday 29 April 2010 15:44:35 Marek Olšák wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Zack Rusin
> mailto:za...@vmware.com>> wrote: It seems like all we'd
> really need is relate those things to
> the feature/api levels it exposes and document it.
>
> Feature levels are a pretty bad match for
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Zack Rusin wrote:
> It seems like all we'd really need is relate those things to
> the feature/api levels it exposes and document it.
>
Feature levels are a pretty bad match for D3D9-level chipsets since the
hardware is so divergent that you'd need a lot of them.
On Thursday 29 April 2010 14:09:22 José Fonseca wrote:
> We don't have such fined grain capabilities in Gallium drivers yet, so I
> followed Keith's suggestion of tie the native program limits to the GLSL
> and SM3 support exported by the driver.
That seems like a pretty good solution to me for no
We don't have such fined grain capabilities in Gallium drivers yet, so I
followed Keith's suggestion of tie the native program limits to the GLSL
and SM3 support exported by the driver.
I'm selling this as a short term fix. I think we should start thinking
in shader caps in gallium, and how fine g
