Jump to content
Posted 16 January 2012 - 10:06 AM
Posted 16 January 2012 - 12:15 PM
Posted 17 January 2012 - 05:26 AM
Posted 17 January 2012 - 05:39 AM
Posted 17 January 2012 - 07:23 AM
Posted 17 January 2012 - 07:29 AM
Posted 17 January 2012 - 12:05 PM
It appears that the gentleman thought C++ was extremely difficult and he was overjoyed that the machine was absorbing it; he understood that good C++ is difficult but the best C++ is well-nigh unintelligible.
Posted 17 January 2012 - 12:49 PM
Posted 17 January 2012 - 05:52 PM
This isn't really true -- D3D's shader assembly language is only an intermediate language (like MSIL compared to x86 asm). Every different GPU model has its own asm language, which you don't have access to, and the graphics driver will compile your D3D assmebly into real GPU assembly at some point (and in the process, may perform it's own optimisation/rescheduling pass over your code).
full control of exactly what shaders they create is another
Posted 18 January 2012 - 01:33 AM
It sounds like a very unreliable and complicated way to post-patch the generated assembler code to change the behavior of a shader. Despite "Dynamic Linking" is working only with SM5.0 profile, you could probably use other techniques to achieve similar goals, like using OOP features introduced with D3D11 which are backward compatible to SM3.0 profile (check for example "Advanced HLSL using closures and function pointers")
The reason that i can't use hlsl, is that i need to patch shaders to change their behaviour in a certain way.
It's significantly easier to do it for assembly code, than for hlsl code due to many reasons. One of the reasons is how easy it is to write an hlsl assembly parser in comparison with writing a parser for hlsl.
Posted 19 January 2012 - 01:18 AM
Posted 19 January 2012 - 02:02 AM
Posted 19 January 2012 - 12:02 PM