# C++ Export Visual Studio shader compile custom build rules to a text file

## Recommended Posts

Example custom build tool command for a shader which has vertex, pixel, and geometry shader stages:

fxc %(Identity) /E VSMain /T vs_5_0 $(HLSLCompileFlags) /Fo %(Identity)\..\Binary\%(Filename).vert.bin fxc %(Identity) /E PSMain /T ps_5_0$(HLSLCompileFlags) /Fo %(Identity)\..\Binary\%(Filename).frag.bin
fxc %(Identity) /E GSMain /T gs_5_0 \$(HLSLCompileFlags) /Fo %(Identity)\..\Binary\%(Filename).geom.bin

So here is the process-

- Run custom build rules for the shader files

- In post-build event of the project, collect all these custom build tool commands and dump them to a text file

- Now if user wants to recompile, just load this text file and execute all commands inside

How would I get access to these custom build tool commands in the post-build event?

Edited by mark_braga

##### Share on other sites

If your normal build process in Visual Studio invokes MSBuild (by default it should), then look in the options for the output verbosity (Tools/Options/Projects and Solutions/Build and Run/MSBuild project build output verbosity) and crank it all the way up (Diagnostic).  Then do whatever you normally do which invokes the custom tool and see if the command line options for the tool show up in the build output window.

In VS2017 I also see an option to do that for a build log file.  You could potentially write a command line tool which parses the log file, then run that tool for your 'when a user presses a key' case.

I've only used this for UWP packaging automation, but it might work in your case as well.

Edited by Nypyren

##### Share on other sites

Thats a good idea. But does it crank up the verbosity only on my local machine or it is actually changing project settings?

Edit:

The .tlog folder has all the custom build commands stored in the custombuild.command.1.tlog file. This makes it straightforward.

Thanks for the help

Edited by mark_braga

##### Share on other sites

I think it changes it for your local user settings, so the change won't affect other people on the team.  That could be good or bad depending on whether you want everyone to use the whole verbose-logging process or if you plan to distribute the resulting log after you capture it.

Edited by Nypyren

## Create an account

Register a new account

• 9
• 9
• 13
• 41
• 15
• ### Similar Content

• bs::framework is a newly released, free and open-source C++ game development framework. It aims to provide a modern C++14 API & codebase, focus on high-end technologies comparable to commercial engine offerings and a highly optimized core capable of running demanding projects. Additionally it aims to offer a clean, simple architecture with lightweight implementations that allow the framework to be easily enhanced with new features and therefore be ready for future growth.
Some of the currently available features include a physically based renderer based on Vulkan, DirectX and OpenGL, unified shading language, systems for animation, audio, GUI, physics, scripting, heavily multi-threaded core, full API documentation + user manuals, support for Windows, Linux and macOS and more.
The next few updates are focusing on adding support for scripting languages like C#, Python and Lua, further enhancing the rendering fidelity and adding sub-systems for particle and terrain rendering.
A complete editor based on the framework is also in development, currently available in pre-alpha stage.

View full story

• bs::framework is a newly released, free and open-source C++ game development framework. It aims to provide a modern C++14 API & codebase, focus on high-end technologies comparable to commercial engine offerings and a highly optimized core capable of running demanding projects. Additionally it aims to offer a clean, simple architecture with lightweight implementations that allow the framework to be easily enhanced with new features and therefore be ready for future growth.
Some of the currently available features include a physically based renderer based on Vulkan, DirectX and OpenGL, unified shading language, systems for animation, audio, GUI, physics, scripting, heavily multi-threaded core, full API documentation + user manuals, support for Windows, Linux and macOS and more.
The next few updates are focusing on adding support for scripting languages like C#, Python and Lua, further enhancing the rendering fidelity and adding sub-systems for particle and terrain rendering.
A complete editor based on the framework is also in development, currently available in pre-alpha stage.

• Hi again,  After some looking around I have decided to base my game directly on Direct X rather than using an existing game engine.  Because of the nature of the stuff I'm doing it just didn't seem to fit very well and I kept running into road blocks.  At this point I have a big blob of code for doing fractal world generation and some collision code,  and I'm trying to put it into some form that resembles a game engine.  Since I've never used one before It's a bit alien to me ..... so can someone direct me to a book, website, article, whatever... that covers this?  I'm mainly looking for stuff that covers C++ library design. I'm not adverse to using 3rd party tools for stuff I can used them for.

• I'M interested in programming tools (For animation, UI, etc). Can anyone suggest me the resources where I can start learning or which technologies I need achive it.

Thanks,
Rakshit
• By chiffre
Introduction:
In general my questions pertain to the differences between floating- and fixed-point data. Additionally I would like to understand when it can be advantageous to prefer fixed-point representation over floating-point representation in the context of vertex data and how the hardware deals with the different data-types. I believe I should be able to reduce the amount of data (bytes) necessary per vertex by choosing the most opportune representations for my vertex attributes. Thanks ahead of time if you, the reader, are considering the effort of reading this and helping me.
I found an old topic that shows this is possible in principal, but I am not sure I understand what the pitfalls are when using fixed-point representation and whether there are any hardware-based performance advantages/disadvantages.
(TLDR at bottom)
The Actual Post:
To my understanding HLSL/D3D11 offers not just the traditional floating point model in half-,single-, and double-precision, but also the fixed-point model in form of signed/unsigned normalized integers in 8-,10-,16-,24-, and 32-bit variants. Both models offer a finite sequence of "grid-points". The obvious difference between the two models is that the fixed-point model offers a constant spacing between values in the normalized range of [0,1] or [-1,1], while the floating point model allows for smaller "deltas" as you get closer to 0, and larger "deltas" the further you are away from 0.
To add some context, let me define a struct as an example:
struct VertexData { float[3] position; //3x32-bits float[2] texCoord; //2x32-bits float[3] normals; //3x32-bits } //Total of 32 bytes Every vertex gets a position, a coordinate on my texture, and a normal to do some light calculations. In this case we have 8x32=256bits per vertex. Since the texture coordinates lie in the interval [0,1] and the normal vector components are in the interval [-1,1] it would seem useful to use normalized representation as suggested in the topic linked at the top of the post. The texture coordinates might as well be represented in a fixed-point model, because it seems most useful to be able to sample the texture in a uniform manner, as the pixels don't get any "denser" as we get closer to 0. In other words the "delta" does not need to become any smaller as the texture coordinates approach (0,0). A similar argument can be made for the normal-vector, as a normal vector should be normalized anyway, and we want as many points as possible on the sphere around (0,0,0) with a radius of 1, and we don't care about precision around the origin. Even if we have large textures such as 4k by 4k (or the maximum allowed by D3D11, 16k by 16k) we only need as many grid-points on one axis, as there are pixels on one axis. An unsigned normalized 14 bit integer would be ideal, but because it is both unsupported and impractical, we will stick to an unsigned normalized 16 bit integer. The same type should take care of the normal vector coordinates, and might even be a bit overkill.
struct VertexData { float[3] position; //3x32-bits uint16_t[2] texCoord; //2x16bits uint16_t[3] normals; //3x16bits } //Total of 22 bytes Seems like a good start, and we might even be able to take it further, but before we pursue that path, here is my first question: can the GPU even work with the data in this format, or is all I have accomplished minimizing CPU-side RAM usage? Does the GPU have to convert the texture coordinates back to a floating-point model when I hand them over to the sampler in my pixel shader? I have looked up the data types for HLSL and I am not sure I even comprehend how to declare the vertex input type in HLSL. Would the following work?
struct VertexInputType { float3 pos; //this one is obvious unorm half2 tex; //half corresponds to a 16-bit float, so I assume this is wrong, but this the only 16-bit type I found on the linked MSDN site snorm half3 normal; //same as above } I assume this is possible somehow, as I have found input element formats such as: DXGI_FORMAT_R16G16B16A16_SNORM and DXGI_FORMAT_R16G16B16A16_UNORM (also available with a different number of components, as well as different component lengths). I might have to avoid 3-component vectors because there is no 3-component 16-bit input element format, but that is the least of my worries. The next question would be: what happens with my normals if I try to do lighting calculations with them in such a normalized-fixed-point format? Is there no issue as long as I take care not to mix floating- and fixed-point data? Or would that work as well? In general this gives rise to the question: how does the GPU handle fixed-point arithmetic? Is it the same as integer-arithmetic, and/or is it faster/slower than floating-point arithmetic?
Assuming that we still have a valid and useful VertexData format, how far could I take this while remaining on the sensible side of what could be called optimization? Theoretically I could use the an input element format such as DXGI_FORMAT_R10G10B10A2_UNORM to pack my normal coordinates into a 10-bit fixed-point format, and my verticies (in object space) might even be representable in a 16-bit unsigned normalized fixed-point format. That way I could end up with something like the following struct:
struct VertexData { uint16_t[3] pos; //3x16bits uint16_t[2] texCoord; //2x16bits uint32_t packedNormals; //10+10+10+2bits } //Total of 14 bytes Could I use a vertex structure like this without too much performance-loss on the GPU-side? If the GPU has to execute some sort of unpacking algorithm in the background I might as well let it be. In the end I have a functioning deferred renderer, but I would like to reduce the memory footprint of the huge amount of vertecies involved in rendering my landscape.
TLDR: I have a lot of vertices that I need to render and I want to reduce the RAM-usage without introducing crazy compression/decompression algorithms to the CPU or GPU. I am hoping to find a solution by involving fixed-point data-types, but I am not exactly sure how how that would work.