On 14 November 2014 20:41, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
> That looks quite ok to me. Slightly suboptimal maybe but quite
> reasonable - you can't really expect "optimal" code always. (With the
> proposal to nuke cnd from tgsi though you'd just generate the same in
> any case probably.)
> I suspect th
Am 14.11.2014 um 19:38 schrieb Henri Verbeet:
> On 14 November 2014 18:50, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> I can't speak for the radeon guys, but I know I sure would love to see
>> any reports of poor code being generated by nouveau in response to
>> legitimate-seeming TGSI (or GLSL). In some cases, a simpl
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
> On 14 November 2014 18:50, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> I can't speak for the radeon guys, but I know I sure would love to see
>> any reports of poor code being generated by nouveau in response to
>> legitimate-seeming TGSI (or GLSL). In some cases
On 14 November 2014 18:50, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> I can't speak for the radeon guys, but I know I sure would love to see
> any reports of poor code being generated by nouveau in response to
> legitimate-seeming TGSI (or GLSL). In some cases, a simple
> optimization can be added to take care of it, a
[changing subjects not to derail original discussion]
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
>> I strongly doubt that the performance increases are due
>> to better d3d9 bytecode -> TGSI conversion than -> glsl -> tgsi
>> conversion -- most serious backends (r600, radeonsi, nouvea
