Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: AMD R600g Now Does TBO, UBO & Advertises GLSL 1.40

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,383

    Default AMD R600g Now Does TBO, UBO & Advertises GLSL 1.40

    Phoronix: AMD R600g Now Does TBO, UBO & Advertises GLSL 1.40

    Last year UBO and TBO for the Radeon R600 Gallium3D driver was talked about and early patches proposed, but merged on Friday was finally this support for Uniform Buffer Objects and Texture Buffer Objects. With the OpenGL UBO/TBO support, the Radeon R600g driver is now advertising GLSL 1.40 as needed for OpenGL 3.1 compliance...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTI3Mjk

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,305

    Default

    Wow. I just looked at the TODO list: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/tree/docs/GL3.txt
    It looks like GLSL 1.5 is the last big hurdle for full OpenGL 3.3 compliance.
    Good work, mesa devs!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanL View Post
    Wow. I just looked at the TODO list: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/tree/docs/GL3.txt
    It looks like GLSL 1.5 is the last big hurdle for full OpenGL 3.3 compliance.
    Good work, mesa devs!
    You forgot Geometry shaders. That's the really big problem as AFAIK no further progress anymore (GLSL gets love from Intel OTC).

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zxy_thf View Post
    You forgot Geometry shaders. That's the really big problem as AFAIK no further progress anymore (GLSL gets love from Intel OTC).
    Lets hope it and Clover gets hammered out and commited fast so that this fall's distro update cycle can have full OpenGL 3.3 and OpenCL 1.2 support activated by default in the OSS drivers.

    Then onward to OpenGL 4 glory!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Srpska Republic, Bosnia&Herzegovina
    Posts
    109

    Default Problem loading the driver

    Does anyone have this problem with these latest commits:

    libGL: OpenDriver: trying /usr/lib/xorg/modules/dri/tls/r600_dri.so
    libGL: OpenDriver: trying /usr/lib/xorg/modules/dri/r600_dri.so
    libGL error: dlopen /usr/lib/xorg/modules/dri/r600_dri.so failed (/usr/lib/xorg/modules/dri/r600_dri.so: undefined symbol: _ZTVN10__cxxabiv120__si_class_type_infoE)
    libGL error: unable to load driver: r600_dri.so
    libGL error: driver pointer missing
    libGL error: failed to load driver: r600

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pejakm View Post
    Does anyone have this problem with these latest commits:
    [...]
    https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59282

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zxy_thf View Post
    You forgot Geometry shaders. That's the really big problem as AFAIK no further progress anymore (GLSL gets love from Intel OTC).
    There is a tree on github with unproven geometry shader code for r600g, intel would need to add 965 support, it just needs a lot of piglit tests and a lot of review, the last missing bit then is GL_ARB_texture_multisample which is also under construction by another dev for 965, which could be fixed up for gallium fairly easily hopefully.

    but writing the piglit tests for geometry shaders is probably the biggest problem.

    Dave.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Srpska Republic, Bosnia&Herzegovina
    Posts
    109

    Default

    It's interesting that OpenGL 3.3 is ready, according http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/tree/docs/GL3.txt. Does that mean when GL 3.2 gets done we automatically have and GL 3.3?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pejakm View Post
    It's interesting that OpenGL 3.3 is ready, according http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/tree/docs/GL3.txt. Does that mean when GL 3.2 gets done we automatically have and GL 3.3?
    yeah pretty much.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by airlied View Post
    There is a tree on github with unproven geometry shader code for r600g, intel would need to add 965 support, it just needs a lot of piglit tests and a lot of review, the last missing bit then is GL_ARB_texture_multisample which is also under construction by another dev for 965, which could be fixed up for gallium fairly easily hopefully.

    but writing the piglit tests for geometry shaders is probably the biggest problem.

    Dave.
    Although there are no piglit tests for it yet, my geometry shader code on GitHub has had a decent amount of stress-testing; I'm not too concerned about an abundance of bugs in the existing code. Aside from piglit tests (which are, as you say, the biggest problem), though, there are a few other things that need to be done:
    • The changes will need to be rebased and reformatted into a sane patch set rather than the current haphazard mix of commits that add functionality with commits to fix mistakes in previous changes.
    • The interactions with FBOs (section "Dependencies on EXT_framebuffer_object" in the ARB_geometry_shader4 spec) need to be implemented. This might only be needed for the EXT/ARB extensions and not core, but with this much work done on the extensions it would be silly not to support them as well as the core version. It seems that doing this properly will also require changes to the softpipe driver.
    • If it hasn't already been done, the GLSL compiler will need to implement the core version of the geometry shader language. The main change is using the "gl_in[]" struct array for input/output instead of one input array per attribute. This will just require a lowering pass to lower gl_PerVertex accesses to the 2D array accesses used in the extension, which can be (and already are) sanely translated to TGSI by glsl_to_tgsi.


    Also, sorry for suddenly disappearing from the graphics world last year. Hopefully I will be able to be able to do more for Mesa in the future, but for now there's not much choice but to leave my unfinished geometry shader work to be completed by someone else.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •