Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Vertex inputs: push-model with sparse arrays #249

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Apr 26, 2019

Conversation

kainino0x
Copy link
Contributor

For history, see #186.

@grorg
Copy link
Contributor

grorg commented Apr 1, 2019

Discussed at the 1 April Teleconference

u64 stride;
GPUInputStepMode stepMode;
sequence<GPUVertexAttributeDescriptor> attributes;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we call this attributeSet, so it's clear it's unordered? (Or rather that the order doesn't matter)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wish there were a better way to describe a set here (JS has a Set...) because this name still isn't extremely clear to me. Maybe it's just because I hear terms like "descriptor set" too much.

Anyway, done, unless there are any better name suggestions.

@kvark
Copy link
Contributor

kvark commented Apr 22, 2019

@kainino0x nit: would you mind rebasing instead of introducing the merge commit?

@kainino0x
Copy link
Contributor Author

The merge is there because I used the online interface to merge. If we squash the PR (and we should), then shouldn't it get squashed away too?

@kvark
Copy link
Contributor

kvark commented Apr 23, 2019

I suppose it will, but I'm not used to this workflow. Wondering if that commit would still be treated as the merge commit by git history...

@kainino0x
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm pretty sure it will not be a merge commit, if I remember correctly the last time I did that.

@Kangz
Copy link
Contributor

Kangz commented Apr 25, 2019

This was approved in the call, can we land it?

@kainino0x
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think so.

@kainino0x kainino0x merged commit c871757 into gpuweb:master Apr 26, 2019
@kainino0x kainino0x deleted the vertex-inputs-opt3 branch April 26, 2019 01:01
@kainino0x
Copy link
Contributor Author

FYI, squashing did produce one commit with one parent.

@kainino0x kainino0x mentioned this pull request Oct 30, 2019
13 tasks
ben-clayton pushed a commit to ben-clayton/gpuweb that referenced this pull request Sep 6, 2022
* Fixes about hasDynamicOffset and multisampled in BGL

hasDynamicOffset and multisampled should be undefined in BGL if the
binding types are incorrect. Previously we allow them to be false.

This change moves hasDynamicOffset tests out of visiblity test
and combine it with other optional parameters in BGL.

It also added a validation rule that if the binding type is storage
texture, the viewDimension can't be 'cube' or 'cube-array'.

* Addressed feedback from Kai
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants