[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] st/glsl_to_tgsi: fix mismatch between TGSI BFI/BFE and GLSL

Roland Scheidegger sroland at vmware.com
Mon Oct 24 18:57:20 UTC 2016

On 10/24/2016 04:05 PM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> On 24.10.2016 15:49, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 24.10.2016 15:38, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
>>>> On 24.10.2016 15:34, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>>>> These work properly on nvc0. I'd rather you work around it in your
>>>>> backend.
>>>> That's not a good solution because of how the opcodes are defined. How
>>>> about TGSI_OPCODE_{BFI,[UI]BFE}_GLSL and an associated pipe cap that
>>>> gets enabled for nvc0?
>>> Or we can declare that the semantics of BFI/BFE should just be in
>>> line with
>>> what GLSL wants. I don't know if there are other state trackers that
>>> rely on
>>> it, it seems that you were actually the one who introduced the
>>> wording in
>>> tgsi.rst...
>> Yeah, as part of the ARB_gpu_shader5 bringup. At the time, I believe I
>> specified them as the DX11 thing since I assumed it was identical to
>> the GLSL. I've since learned that not to be the case.
>> If you want to introduce new ops/caps to differentiate the GLSL way
>> and the DX11 way, that's fine by me. (And I'm not picky about which op
>> gets the original name...)
> Okay. The question is whether anybody actually needs the DX11 way. Since
> there's only a nine and not an eleven, I kind of suspect the answer is
> 'no', and then there's no need for a cap.

Having a solution which works for both would be nice, but I suppose we 
can deal with that once someone really needs to meet the dx11 
requirements. And, a dx11 state tracker could always use masks as 


More information about the mesa-dev mailing list