[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mesa3d-dev
Subject:    Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 1/9] compiler: Add new system value	SYSTEM_VALUE_BASE_VERTEX_ID
From:       Neil Roberts <nroberts () igalia ! com>
Date:       2017-11-30 20:43:54
Message-ID: 87r2sfwl85.fsf () yahoo ! co ! uk
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


Kenneth Graunke <kenneth@whitecape.org> writes:

> We have a number of similar names now:
>
>    SYSTEM_VALUE_BASE_VERTEX
>    SYSTEM_VALUE_BASE_VERTEX_ID
>    SYSTEM_VALUE_VERTEX_ID
>    SYSTEM_VALUE_VERTEX_ID_ZERO_BASE
>
> BASE_VERTEX and BASE_VERTEX_ID are really similar names, and honestly
> either one seems like it could be the name for gl_BaseVertex.  I'm
> afraid it would be easy to mix them up by mistake.  IMHO, it would be
> nice to pick a different word, just to keep some distinction between
> the two fairly related concepts...
>
> Perhaps SYSTEM_VALUE_FIRST_VERTEX...?  That's only half the meaning,
> but it at least uses a different word, and makes you think "do I want
> BASE_VERTEX or FIRST_VERTEX?"

Yes, naming this thing is really difficult. I'm not sure if you noticed,
but for Vulkan, the BaseVertex builtin should actually have the value of
BASE_VERTEX_ID unlike GL. So if we rename BASE_VERTEX to something
without "base vertex" in it then it will still be confusing for Vulkan.
So effectively the descriptive names are like:

SYSTEM_VALUE_BASE_VERTEX_ON_GL_BUT_NOT_VULKAN
SYSTEM_VALUE_BASE_VERTEX_ON_VULKAN_OR_OFFSET_FOR_VERTEX_ID_ON_GL

I'm not sure whether that's enough of an argument against FIRST_VERTEX
though, so personally I don't really mind either way.

Antia, what do you think?

Regards,
- Neil

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]
[Attachment #6 (text/plain)]

_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]