<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Implement a NIR -> vec4 pass" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89580#c28">Comment # 28</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Implement a NIR -> vec4 pass" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89580">bug 89580</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:itoral@igalia.com" title="Iago Toral <itoral@igalia.com>"> Iago Toral</a> <pre>(In reply to Kenneth Graunke from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=89580#c27">comment #27</a>) > (In reply to Jason Ekstrand from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=89580#c26">comment #26</a>) > > It sounded, from what you said above, like you had already modified > > nir_lower_io to handle vec4. If that's the case just go ahead and do the > > rename and add the vec4 version. No reason to wait for me or Connor to do > > it. Partially, I did that only when indirect indexing was involved, otherwise we could work with scalar units, which is not great. In any case, it makes sense that I add the change as part of the series so I'll do that. > Yeah, I think your approach is great. > > Instead of passing a gl_shader_stage and checking for != > MESA_SHADER_FRAGMENT, we should just pass a boolean indicating whether we > should make things scalar or pad to vec4s. Or have nir_lower_io_scalar and > nir_lower_io_vec4 functions (effectively the same thing). > > That way, i965's scalar-or-not choices aren't baked into the generic code, > and everybody can pick what they want. Yeah, that sounds good to me. Thanks for the feedback!</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>