Stefan Dösinger wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 19. März 2008 07:46:07 schrieb Ivan Gyurdiev: > >> Why do you need to reroute the shader path through atifs to support an >> unrelated set of functionality (ffp replacement)? Isn't it possible to >> have an ffp_backend, and a shader_backend (shader being the d3d shader), >> and you can implement both differently, with different APIs? >> > Sounds all great and cool, but: How do you handle a case of a d3d vertex > shader + fixed function fragment processing using a GLSL shader replacement? > An Uber-Shader-Backend that links the shaders together? > > I can happily drop the strange routing through GLSL and the none shader > backend for ATIFS, or with ARB pixel shaders enabled. In that case we'll just > don't make use of it on ATI 9500+ cards until we have an ARB or GLSL > replacement. >
I'll get back to you on that later tonight, need to think about this some more - way late for work right now... (thanks to you!) However, yes, I think there needs to be distinction between a standalone shader concept, and a pipeline concept, which is concerned with linking several multifunctional shaders together - your "uber-shader-backend". Lack of distinction on this point is causing all this confusion. Ivan
