mutter/cogl/cogl-pipeline-fragend-arbfp.c

1104 lines
36 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

/*
* Cogl
*
* An object oriented GL/GLES Abstraction/Utility Layer
*
* Copyright (C) 2008,2009,2010 Intel Corporation.
*
* This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
* modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
* License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
* version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
*
* This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
* Lesser General Public License for more details.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
* License along with this library. If not, see
* <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
*
*
*
* Authors:
* Robert Bragg <robert@linux.intel.com>
*/
#ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H
#include "config.h"
#endif
#include "cogl-debug.h"
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
#include "cogl-pipeline-private.h"
#ifdef COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP
#include "cogl.h"
#include "cogl-internal.h"
#include "cogl-context-private.h"
#include "cogl-handle.h"
#include "cogl-texture-private.h"
#include "cogl-blend-string.h"
#include "cogl-journal-private.h"
#include "cogl-color-private.h"
#include "cogl-profile.h"
Merge cogl-program-{gl,gles}.c into one cogl-program.c This merges the two implementations of CoglProgram for the GLES2 and GL backends into one. The implementation is more like the GLES2 version which would track the uniform values and delay sending them to GL. CoglProgram is now effectively just a GList of CoglShaders along with an array of stored uniform values. CoglProgram never actually creates a GL program, instead this is left up to the GLSL material backend. This is necessary on GLES2 where we may need to relink the user's program with different generated shaders depending on the other emulated fixed function state. It will also be necessary in the future GLSL backends for regular OpenGL. The GLSL and ARBfp material backends are now the ones that create and link the GL program from the list of shaders. The linked program is attached to the private material state so that it can be reused if the CoglProgram is used again with the same material. This does mean the program will get relinked if the shader is used with multiple materials. This will be particularly bad if the legacy cogl_program_use function is used because that effectively always makes one-shot materials. This problem will hopefully be alleviated if we make a hash table with a cache of generated programs. The cogl program would then need to become part of the hash lookup. Each CoglProgram now has an age counter which is incremented every time a shader is added. This is used by the material backends to detect when we need to create a new GL program for the user program. The internal _cogl_use_program function now takes a GL program handle rather than a CoglProgram. It no longer needs any special differences for GLES2. The GLES2 wrapper function now also uses this function to bind its generated shaders. The ARBfp shaders no longer store a copy of the program source but instead just directly create a program object when cogl_shader_source is called. This avoids having to reupload the source if the same shader is used in multiple materials. There are currently a few gross hacks to get the GLES2 backend to work with this. The problem is that the GLSL material backend is now generating a complete GL program but the GLES2 wrapper still needs to add its fixed function emulation shaders if the program doesn't provide either a vertex or fragment shader. There is a new function in the GLES2 wrapper called _cogl_gles2_use_program which replaces the previous cogl_program_use implementation. It extracts the GL shaders from the GL program object and creates a new GL program containing all of the shaders plus its fixed function emulation. This new program is returned to the GLSL material backend so that it can still flush the custom uniforms using it. The user_program is attached to the GLES2 settings struct as before but its stored using a GL program handle rather than a CoglProgram pointer. This hack will go away once the GLSL material backend replaces the GLES2 wrapper by generating the code itself. Under Mesa this currently generates some GL errors when glClear is called in test-cogl-shader-glsl. I think this is due to a bug in Mesa however. When the user program on the material is changed the GLSL backend gets notified and deletes the GL program that it linked from the user shaders. The program will still be bound in GL however. Leaving a deleted shader bound exposes a bug in Mesa's glClear implementation. More details are here: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31194
2010-10-15 13:00:29 -04:00
#include "cogl-program-private.h"
#include <glib.h>
#include <glib/gprintf.h>
#include <string.h>
Add a Cogl texture 3D backend This adds a publicly exposed experimental API for a 3D texture backend. There is a feature flag which can be checked for whether 3D textures are supported. Although we require OpenGL 1.2 which has 3D textures in core, GLES only provides them through an extension so the feature can be used to detect that. The textures can be created with one of two new API functions :- cogl_texture_3d_new_with_size and cogl_texture_3d_new_from_data There is also internally a new_from_bitmap function. new_from_data is implemented in terms of this function. The two constructors are effectively the only way to upload data to a 3D texture. It does not work to call glTexImage2D with the GL_TEXTURE_3D target so the virtual for cogl_texture_set_region does nothing. It would be possible to make cogl_texture_get_data do something sensible like returning all of the images as a single long image but this is not currently implemented and instead the virtual just always fails. We may want to add API specific to the 3D texture backend to get and set a sub region of the texture. All of those three functions can throw a GError. This will happen if the GPU does not support 3D textures or it does not support NPOTs and an NPOT size is requested. It will also fail if the FBO extension is not supported and the COGL_TEXTURE_NO_AUTO_MIPMAP flag is not given. This could be avoided by copying the code for the GL_GENERATE_MIPMAP TexParameter fallback, but in the interests of keeping the code simple this is not yet done. This adds a couple of functions to cogl-texture-driver for uploading 3D data and querying the 3D proxy texture. prep_gl_for_pixels_upload_full now also takes sets the GL_UNPACK_IMAGE_HEIGHT parameter so that 3D textures can have padding between the images. Whenever 3D texture is uploading, both the height of the images and the height of all of the data is specified (either explicitly or implicilty from the CoglBitmap) so that the image height can be deduced by dividing by the depth.
2010-07-01 17:04:59 -04:00
/* This might not be defined on GLES */
#ifndef GL_TEXTURE_3D
#define GL_TEXTURE_3D 0x806F
#endif
typedef struct _UnitState
{
int constant_id; /* The program.local[] index */
unsigned int dirty_combine_constant:1;
unsigned int sampled:1;
} UnitState;
typedef struct _ArbfpProgramState
{
int ref_count;
/* XXX: only valid during codegen */
CoglPipeline *arbfp_authority;
CoglHandle user_program;
/* XXX: only valid during codegen */
GString *source;
GLuint gl_program;
UnitState *unit_state;
int next_constant_id;
Merge cogl-program-{gl,gles}.c into one cogl-program.c This merges the two implementations of CoglProgram for the GLES2 and GL backends into one. The implementation is more like the GLES2 version which would track the uniform values and delay sending them to GL. CoglProgram is now effectively just a GList of CoglShaders along with an array of stored uniform values. CoglProgram never actually creates a GL program, instead this is left up to the GLSL material backend. This is necessary on GLES2 where we may need to relink the user's program with different generated shaders depending on the other emulated fixed function state. It will also be necessary in the future GLSL backends for regular OpenGL. The GLSL and ARBfp material backends are now the ones that create and link the GL program from the list of shaders. The linked program is attached to the private material state so that it can be reused if the CoglProgram is used again with the same material. This does mean the program will get relinked if the shader is used with multiple materials. This will be particularly bad if the legacy cogl_program_use function is used because that effectively always makes one-shot materials. This problem will hopefully be alleviated if we make a hash table with a cache of generated programs. The cogl program would then need to become part of the hash lookup. Each CoglProgram now has an age counter which is incremented every time a shader is added. This is used by the material backends to detect when we need to create a new GL program for the user program. The internal _cogl_use_program function now takes a GL program handle rather than a CoglProgram. It no longer needs any special differences for GLES2. The GLES2 wrapper function now also uses this function to bind its generated shaders. The ARBfp shaders no longer store a copy of the program source but instead just directly create a program object when cogl_shader_source is called. This avoids having to reupload the source if the same shader is used in multiple materials. There are currently a few gross hacks to get the GLES2 backend to work with this. The problem is that the GLSL material backend is now generating a complete GL program but the GLES2 wrapper still needs to add its fixed function emulation shaders if the program doesn't provide either a vertex or fragment shader. There is a new function in the GLES2 wrapper called _cogl_gles2_use_program which replaces the previous cogl_program_use implementation. It extracts the GL shaders from the GL program object and creates a new GL program containing all of the shaders plus its fixed function emulation. This new program is returned to the GLSL material backend so that it can still flush the custom uniforms using it. The user_program is attached to the GLES2 settings struct as before but its stored using a GL program handle rather than a CoglProgram pointer. This hack will go away once the GLSL material backend replaces the GLES2 wrapper by generating the code itself. Under Mesa this currently generates some GL errors when glClear is called in test-cogl-shader-glsl. I think this is due to a bug in Mesa however. When the user program on the material is changed the GLSL backend gets notified and deletes the GL program that it linked from the user shaders. The program will still be bound in GL however. Leaving a deleted shader bound exposes a bug in Mesa's glClear implementation. More details are here: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31194
2010-10-15 13:00:29 -04:00
/* Age of the program the last time the uniforms were flushed. This
is used to detect when we need to flush all of the uniforms */
unsigned int user_program_age;
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
/* We need to track the last pipeline that an ARBfp program was used
* with so know if we need to update any program.local parameters. */
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
CoglPipeline *last_used_for_pipeline;
} ArbfpProgramState;
typedef struct _CoglPipelineFragendARBfpPrivate
{
ArbfpProgramState *arbfp_program_state;
} CoglPipelineFragendARBfpPrivate;
const CoglPipelineFragend _cogl_pipeline_arbfp_fragend;
static ArbfpProgramState *
arbfp_program_state_new (int n_layers)
{
ArbfpProgramState *state = g_slice_new0 (ArbfpProgramState);
state->ref_count = 1;
state->unit_state = g_new0 (UnitState, n_layers);
return state;
}
static ArbfpProgramState *
arbfp_program_state_ref (ArbfpProgramState *state)
{
state->ref_count++;
return state;
}
void
arbfp_program_state_unref (ArbfpProgramState *state)
{
_COGL_GET_CONTEXT (ctx, NO_RETVAL);
g_return_if_fail (state->ref_count > 0);
state->ref_count--;
if (state->ref_count == 0)
{
if (state->gl_program)
{
GE (ctx, glDeletePrograms (1, &state->gl_program));
state->gl_program = 0;
}
g_free (state->unit_state);
g_slice_free (ArbfpProgramState, state);
}
}
static CoglPipelineFragendARBfpPrivate *
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
get_arbfp_priv (CoglPipeline *pipeline)
{
if (!(pipeline->fragend_priv_set_mask & COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP_MASK))
return NULL;
return pipeline->fragend_privs[COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP];
}
static void
set_arbfp_priv (CoglPipeline *pipeline, CoglPipelineFragendARBfpPrivate *priv)
{
if (priv)
{
pipeline->fragend_privs[COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP] = priv;
pipeline->fragend_priv_set_mask |= COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP_MASK;
}
else
pipeline->fragend_priv_set_mask &= ~COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP_MASK;
}
static ArbfpProgramState *
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
get_arbfp_program_state (CoglPipeline *pipeline)
{
CoglPipelineFragendARBfpPrivate *priv = get_arbfp_priv (pipeline);
if (!priv)
return NULL;
return priv->arbfp_program_state;
}
static gboolean
_cogl_pipeline_fragend_arbfp_start (CoglPipeline *pipeline,
int n_layers,
unsigned long pipelines_difference,
int n_tex_coord_attribs)
{
CoglPipelineFragendARBfpPrivate *priv;
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
CoglPipeline *authority;
CoglPipelineFragendARBfpPrivate *authority_priv;
ArbfpProgramState *arbfp_program_state;
CoglHandle user_program;
_COGL_GET_CONTEXT (ctx, FALSE);
/* First validate that we can handle the current state using ARBfp
*/
if (!cogl_features_available (COGL_FEATURE_SHADERS_ARBFP))
return FALSE;
/* TODO: support fog */
if (ctx->legacy_fog_state.enabled)
return FALSE;
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
user_program = cogl_pipeline_get_user_program (pipeline);
if (user_program != COGL_INVALID_HANDLE)
{
/* If the program doesn't have a fragment shader then some other
vertend will handle the vertex shader state and we still need
to generate a fragment program */
if (!_cogl_program_has_fragment_shader (user_program))
user_program = COGL_INVALID_HANDLE;
/* If the user program does have a fragment shader then we can
only handle it if it's in ARBfp */
else if (_cogl_program_get_language (user_program) !=
COGL_SHADER_LANGUAGE_ARBFP)
return FALSE;
}
/* Now lookup our ARBfp backend private state (allocating if
* necessary) */
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
priv = get_arbfp_priv (pipeline);
if (!priv)
{
priv = g_slice_new0 (CoglPipelineFragendARBfpPrivate);
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
set_arbfp_priv (pipeline, priv);
}
/* If we have a valid arbfp_program_state pointer then we are all
* set and don't need to generate a new program. */
if (priv->arbfp_program_state)
return TRUE;
/* If we don't have an associated arbfp program yet then find the
* arbfp-authority (the oldest ancestor whose state will result in
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
* the same program being generated as for this pipeline).
*
* We always make sure to associate new programs with the
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
* arbfp-authority to maximize the chance that other pipelines can
* share it.
*/
authority = _cogl_pipeline_find_equivalent_parent
(pipeline,
COGL_PIPELINE_STATE_AFFECTS_FRAGMENT_CODEGEN &
~COGL_PIPELINE_STATE_LAYERS,
COGL_PIPELINE_LAYER_STATE_AFFECTS_FRAGMENT_CODEGEN);
authority_priv = get_arbfp_priv (authority);
if (authority_priv &&
authority_priv->arbfp_program_state)
{
/* If we are going to share our program state with an arbfp-authority
* then steal a reference to the program state associated with that
* arbfp-authority... */
priv->arbfp_program_state =
arbfp_program_state_ref (authority_priv->arbfp_program_state);
return TRUE;
}
if (!authority_priv)
{
authority_priv = g_slice_new0 (CoglPipelineFragendARBfpPrivate);
set_arbfp_priv (authority, authority_priv);
}
/* If we haven't yet found an existing program then before we resort to
* generating a new arbfp program we see if we can find a suitable
* program in the arbfp_cache. */
if (G_LIKELY (!(COGL_DEBUG_ENABLED (COGL_DEBUG_DISABLE_PROGRAM_CACHES))))
{
arbfp_program_state = g_hash_table_lookup (ctx->arbfp_cache, authority);
if (arbfp_program_state)
{
priv->arbfp_program_state =
arbfp_program_state_ref (arbfp_program_state);
/* Since we have already resolved the arbfp-authority at this point
* we might as well also associate any program we find from the cache
* with the authority too... */
if (authority_priv != priv)
authority_priv->arbfp_program_state =
arbfp_program_state_ref (arbfp_program_state);
return TRUE;
}
}
/* If we still haven't found an existing program then start
* generating code for a new program...
*/
arbfp_program_state = arbfp_program_state_new (n_layers);
priv->arbfp_program_state = arbfp_program_state_ref (arbfp_program_state);
/* Since we have already resolved the arbfp-authority at this point we might
* as well also associate any program we generate with the authority too...
*/
if (authority_priv != priv)
authority_priv->arbfp_program_state =
arbfp_program_state_ref (arbfp_program_state);
arbfp_program_state->user_program = user_program;
if (user_program == COGL_INVALID_HANDLE)
{
int i;
/* We reuse a single grow-only GString for code-gen */
g_string_set_size (ctx->codegen_source_buffer, 0);
arbfp_program_state->source = ctx->codegen_source_buffer;
g_string_append (arbfp_program_state->source,
"!!ARBfp1.0\n"
"TEMP output;\n"
"TEMP tmp0, tmp1, tmp2, tmp3, tmp4;\n"
"PARAM half = {.5, .5, .5, .5};\n"
"PARAM one = {1, 1, 1, 1};\n"
"PARAM two = {2, 2, 2, 2};\n"
"PARAM minus_one = {-1, -1, -1, -1};\n");
/* At the end of code-gen we'll add the program to a cache and
* we'll use the authority pipeline as the basis for key into
* that cache... */
arbfp_program_state->arbfp_authority = authority;
for (i = 0; i < n_layers; i++)
{
arbfp_program_state->unit_state[i].sampled = FALSE;
arbfp_program_state->unit_state[i].dirty_combine_constant = FALSE;
}
arbfp_program_state->next_constant_id = 0;
}
return TRUE;
}
unsigned int
_cogl_pipeline_fragend_arbfp_hash (const void *data)
{
unsigned long fragment_state =
COGL_PIPELINE_STATE_AFFECTS_FRAGMENT_CODEGEN;
unsigned long layer_fragment_state =
COGL_PIPELINE_LAYER_STATE_AFFECTS_FRAGMENT_CODEGEN;
return _cogl_pipeline_hash ((CoglPipeline *)data,
fragment_state, layer_fragment_state,
0);
}
gboolean
_cogl_pipeline_fragend_arbfp_equal (const void *a, const void *b)
{
unsigned long fragment_state =
COGL_PIPELINE_STATE_AFFECTS_FRAGMENT_CODEGEN;
unsigned long layer_fragment_state =
COGL_PIPELINE_LAYER_STATE_AFFECTS_FRAGMENT_CODEGEN;
return _cogl_pipeline_equal ((CoglPipeline *)a, (CoglPipeline *)b,
fragment_state, layer_fragment_state,
0);
}
static const char *
gl_target_to_arbfp_string (GLenum gl_target)
{
#ifndef HAVE_COGL_GLES2
if (gl_target == GL_TEXTURE_1D)
return "1D";
else
#endif
if (gl_target == GL_TEXTURE_2D)
return "2D";
#ifdef GL_ARB_texture_rectangle
else if (gl_target == GL_TEXTURE_RECTANGLE_ARB)
return "RECT";
#endif
Add a Cogl texture 3D backend This adds a publicly exposed experimental API for a 3D texture backend. There is a feature flag which can be checked for whether 3D textures are supported. Although we require OpenGL 1.2 which has 3D textures in core, GLES only provides them through an extension so the feature can be used to detect that. The textures can be created with one of two new API functions :- cogl_texture_3d_new_with_size and cogl_texture_3d_new_from_data There is also internally a new_from_bitmap function. new_from_data is implemented in terms of this function. The two constructors are effectively the only way to upload data to a 3D texture. It does not work to call glTexImage2D with the GL_TEXTURE_3D target so the virtual for cogl_texture_set_region does nothing. It would be possible to make cogl_texture_get_data do something sensible like returning all of the images as a single long image but this is not currently implemented and instead the virtual just always fails. We may want to add API specific to the 3D texture backend to get and set a sub region of the texture. All of those three functions can throw a GError. This will happen if the GPU does not support 3D textures or it does not support NPOTs and an NPOT size is requested. It will also fail if the FBO extension is not supported and the COGL_TEXTURE_NO_AUTO_MIPMAP flag is not given. This could be avoided by copying the code for the GL_GENERATE_MIPMAP TexParameter fallback, but in the interests of keeping the code simple this is not yet done. This adds a couple of functions to cogl-texture-driver for uploading 3D data and querying the 3D proxy texture. prep_gl_for_pixels_upload_full now also takes sets the GL_UNPACK_IMAGE_HEIGHT parameter so that 3D textures can have padding between the images. Whenever 3D texture is uploading, both the height of the images and the height of all of the data is specified (either explicitly or implicilty from the CoglBitmap) so that the image height can be deduced by dividing by the depth.
2010-07-01 17:04:59 -04:00
else if (gl_target == GL_TEXTURE_3D)
return "3D";
else
return "2D";
}
static void
setup_texture_source (ArbfpProgramState *arbfp_program_state,
int unit_index,
GLenum gl_target)
{
if (!arbfp_program_state->unit_state[unit_index].sampled)
{
if (G_UNLIKELY (COGL_DEBUG_ENABLED (COGL_DEBUG_DISABLE_TEXTURING)))
g_string_append_printf (arbfp_program_state->source,
"TEMP texel%d;\n"
"MOV texel%d, one;\n",
unit_index,
unit_index);
else
g_string_append_printf (arbfp_program_state->source,
"TEMP texel%d;\n"
"TEX texel%d,fragment.texcoord[%d],"
"texture[%d],%s;\n",
unit_index,
unit_index,
unit_index,
unit_index,
gl_target_to_arbfp_string (gl_target));
arbfp_program_state->unit_state[unit_index].sampled = TRUE;
}
}
typedef enum _CoglPipelineFragendARBfpArgType
{
COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP_ARG_TYPE_SIMPLE,
COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP_ARG_TYPE_CONSTANT,
COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP_ARG_TYPE_TEXTURE
} CoglPipelineFragendARBfpArgType;
typedef struct _CoglPipelineFragendARBfpArg
{
const char *name;
CoglPipelineFragendARBfpArgType type;
/* for type = TEXTURE */
int texture_unit;
GLenum texture_target;
/* for type = CONSTANT */
int constant_id;
const char *swizzle;
} CoglPipelineFragendARBfpArg;
static void
append_arg (GString *source, const CoglPipelineFragendARBfpArg *arg)
{
switch (arg->type)
{
case COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP_ARG_TYPE_TEXTURE:
g_string_append_printf (source, "texel%d%s",
arg->texture_unit, arg->swizzle);
break;
case COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP_ARG_TYPE_CONSTANT:
g_string_append_printf (source, "program.local[%d]%s",
arg->constant_id, arg->swizzle);
break;
case COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP_ARG_TYPE_SIMPLE:
g_string_append_printf (source, "%s%s",
arg->name, arg->swizzle);
break;
}
}
/* Note: we are trying to avoid duplicating strings during codegen
* which is why we have the slightly awkward
* CoglPipelineFragendARBfpArg mechanism. */
static void
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
setup_arg (CoglPipeline *pipeline,
CoglPipelineLayer *layer,
CoglBlendStringChannelMask mask,
int arg_index,
GLint src,
GLint op,
CoglPipelineFragendARBfpArg *arg)
{
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
ArbfpProgramState *arbfp_program_state = get_arbfp_program_state (pipeline);
static const char *tmp_name[3] = { "tmp0", "tmp1", "tmp2" };
GLenum gl_target;
CoglHandle texture;
switch (src)
{
case COGL_PIPELINE_COMBINE_SOURCE_TEXTURE:
arg->type = COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP_ARG_TYPE_TEXTURE;
arg->name = "texel%d";
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
arg->texture_unit = _cogl_pipeline_layer_get_unit_index (layer);
texture = _cogl_pipeline_layer_get_texture (layer);
cogl_texture_get_gl_texture (texture, NULL, &gl_target);
setup_texture_source (arbfp_program_state, arg->texture_unit, gl_target);
break;
case COGL_PIPELINE_COMBINE_SOURCE_CONSTANT:
{
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
int unit_index = _cogl_pipeline_layer_get_unit_index (layer);
UnitState *unit_state = &arbfp_program_state->unit_state[unit_index];
unit_state->constant_id = arbfp_program_state->next_constant_id++;
unit_state->dirty_combine_constant = TRUE;
arg->type = COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP_ARG_TYPE_CONSTANT;
arg->name = "program.local[%d]";
arg->constant_id = unit_state->constant_id;
break;
}
case COGL_PIPELINE_COMBINE_SOURCE_PRIMARY_COLOR:
arg->type = COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP_ARG_TYPE_SIMPLE;
arg->name = "fragment.color.primary";
break;
case COGL_PIPELINE_COMBINE_SOURCE_PREVIOUS:
arg->type = COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP_ARG_TYPE_SIMPLE;
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
if (_cogl_pipeline_layer_get_unit_index (layer) == 0)
arg->name = "fragment.color.primary";
else
arg->name = "output";
break;
default: /* GL_TEXTURE0..N */
arg->type = COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP_ARG_TYPE_TEXTURE;
arg->name = "texture[%d]";
arg->texture_unit = src - GL_TEXTURE0;
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
texture = _cogl_pipeline_layer_get_texture (layer);
cogl_texture_get_gl_texture (texture, NULL, &gl_target);
setup_texture_source (arbfp_program_state, arg->texture_unit, gl_target);
}
arg->swizzle = "";
switch (op)
{
case COGL_PIPELINE_COMBINE_OP_SRC_COLOR:
break;
case COGL_PIPELINE_COMBINE_OP_ONE_MINUS_SRC_COLOR:
g_string_append_printf (arbfp_program_state->source,
"SUB tmp%d, one, ",
arg_index);
append_arg (arbfp_program_state->source, arg);
g_string_append_printf (arbfp_program_state->source, ";\n");
arg->type = COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP_ARG_TYPE_SIMPLE;
arg->name = tmp_name[arg_index];
arg->swizzle = "";
break;
case COGL_PIPELINE_COMBINE_OP_SRC_ALPHA:
/* avoid a swizzle if we know RGB are going to be masked
* in the end anyway */
if (mask != COGL_BLEND_STRING_CHANNEL_MASK_ALPHA)
arg->swizzle = ".a";
break;
case COGL_PIPELINE_COMBINE_OP_ONE_MINUS_SRC_ALPHA:
g_string_append_printf (arbfp_program_state->source,
"SUB tmp%d, one, ",
arg_index);
append_arg (arbfp_program_state->source, arg);
/* avoid a swizzle if we know RGB are going to be masked
* in the end anyway */
if (mask != COGL_BLEND_STRING_CHANNEL_MASK_ALPHA)
g_string_append_printf (arbfp_program_state->source, ".a;\n");
else
g_string_append_printf (arbfp_program_state->source, ";\n");
arg->type = COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP_ARG_TYPE_SIMPLE;
arg->name = tmp_name[arg_index];
break;
default:
g_error ("Unknown texture combine operator %d", op);
break;
}
}
static gboolean
fragend_arbfp_args_equal (CoglPipelineFragendARBfpArg *arg0,
CoglPipelineFragendARBfpArg *arg1)
{
if (arg0->type != arg1->type)
return FALSE;
if (arg0->name != arg1->name &&
strcmp (arg0->name, arg1->name) != 0)
return FALSE;
if (arg0->type == COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP_ARG_TYPE_TEXTURE &&
arg0->texture_unit != arg1->texture_unit)
return FALSE;
/* Note we don't have to check the target; a texture unit can only
* have one target enabled at a time. */
if (arg0->type == COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP_ARG_TYPE_CONSTANT &&
arg0->constant_id != arg1->constant_id)
return FALSE;
if (arg0->swizzle != arg1->swizzle &&
strcmp (arg0->swizzle, arg1->swizzle) != 0)
return FALSE;
return TRUE;
}
static void
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
append_function (CoglPipeline *pipeline,
CoglBlendStringChannelMask mask,
GLint function,
CoglPipelineFragendARBfpArg *args,
int n_args)
{
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
ArbfpProgramState *arbfp_program_state = get_arbfp_program_state (pipeline);
const char *mask_name;
switch (mask)
{
case COGL_BLEND_STRING_CHANNEL_MASK_RGB:
mask_name = ".rgb";
break;
case COGL_BLEND_STRING_CHANNEL_MASK_ALPHA:
mask_name = ".a";
break;
case COGL_BLEND_STRING_CHANNEL_MASK_RGBA:
mask_name = "";
break;
default:
g_error ("Unknown channel mask %d", mask);
mask_name = "";
}
switch (function)
{
case COGL_PIPELINE_COMBINE_FUNC_ADD:
g_string_append_printf (arbfp_program_state->source,
"ADD_SAT output%s, ",
mask_name);
break;
case COGL_PIPELINE_COMBINE_FUNC_MODULATE:
/* Note: no need to saturate since we can assume operands
* have values in the range [0,1] */
g_string_append_printf (arbfp_program_state->source, "MUL output%s, ",
mask_name);
break;
case COGL_PIPELINE_COMBINE_FUNC_REPLACE:
/* Note: no need to saturate since we can assume operand
* has a value in the range [0,1] */
g_string_append_printf (arbfp_program_state->source, "MOV output%s, ",
mask_name);
break;
case COGL_PIPELINE_COMBINE_FUNC_SUBTRACT:
g_string_append_printf (arbfp_program_state->source,
"SUB_SAT output%s, ",
mask_name);
break;
case COGL_PIPELINE_COMBINE_FUNC_ADD_SIGNED:
g_string_append_printf (arbfp_program_state->source, "ADD tmp3%s, ",
mask_name);
append_arg (arbfp_program_state->source, &args[0]);
g_string_append (arbfp_program_state->source, ", ");
append_arg (arbfp_program_state->source, &args[1]);
g_string_append (arbfp_program_state->source, ";\n");
g_string_append_printf (arbfp_program_state->source,
"SUB_SAT output%s, tmp3, half",
mask_name);
n_args = 0;
break;
case COGL_PIPELINE_COMBINE_FUNC_DOT3_RGB:
/* These functions are the same except that GL_DOT3_RGB never
* updates the alpha channel.
*
* NB: GL_DOT3_RGBA is a bit special because it effectively forces
* an RGBA mask and we end up ignoring any separate alpha channel
* function.
*/
case COGL_PIPELINE_COMBINE_FUNC_DOT3_RGBA:
{
const char *tmp4 = "tmp4";
/* The maths for this was taken from Mesa;
* apparently:
*
* tmp3 = 2*src0 - 1
* tmp4 = 2*src1 - 1
* output = DP3 (tmp3, tmp4)
*
* is the same as:
*
* output = 4 * DP3 (src0 - 0.5, src1 - 0.5)
*/
g_string_append (arbfp_program_state->source, "MAD tmp3, two, ");
append_arg (arbfp_program_state->source, &args[0]);
g_string_append (arbfp_program_state->source, ", minus_one;\n");
if (!fragend_arbfp_args_equal (&args[0], &args[1]))
{
g_string_append (arbfp_program_state->source, "MAD tmp4, two, ");
append_arg (arbfp_program_state->source, &args[1]);
g_string_append (arbfp_program_state->source, ", minus_one;\n");
}
else
tmp4 = "tmp3";
g_string_append_printf (arbfp_program_state->source,
"DP3_SAT output%s, tmp3, %s",
mask_name, tmp4);
n_args = 0;
}
break;
case COGL_PIPELINE_COMBINE_FUNC_INTERPOLATE:
/* Note: no need to saturate since we can assume operands
* have values in the range [0,1] */
/* NB: GL_INTERPOLATE = arg0*arg2 + arg1*(1-arg2)
* but LRP dst, a, b, c = b*a + c*(1-a) */
g_string_append_printf (arbfp_program_state->source, "LRP output%s, ",
mask_name);
append_arg (arbfp_program_state->source, &args[2]);
g_string_append (arbfp_program_state->source, ", ");
append_arg (arbfp_program_state->source, &args[0]);
g_string_append (arbfp_program_state->source, ", ");
append_arg (arbfp_program_state->source, &args[1]);
n_args = 0;
break;
default:
g_error ("Unknown texture combine function %d", function);
g_string_append_printf (arbfp_program_state->source, "MUL_SAT output%s, ",
mask_name);
n_args = 2;
break;
}
if (n_args > 0)
append_arg (arbfp_program_state->source, &args[0]);
if (n_args > 1)
{
g_string_append (arbfp_program_state->source, ", ");
append_arg (arbfp_program_state->source, &args[1]);
}
g_string_append (arbfp_program_state->source, ";\n");
}
static void
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
append_masked_combine (CoglPipeline *arbfp_authority,
CoglPipelineLayer *layer,
CoglBlendStringChannelMask mask,
CoglPipelineCombineFunc function,
CoglPipelineCombineSource *src,
CoglPipelineCombineOp *op)
{
int i;
int n_args;
CoglPipelineFragendARBfpArg args[3];
n_args = _cogl_get_n_args_for_combine_func (function);
for (i = 0; i < n_args; i++)
{
setup_arg (arbfp_authority,
layer,
mask,
i,
src[i],
op[i],
&args[i]);
}
append_function (arbfp_authority,
mask,
function,
args,
n_args);
}
static gboolean
_cogl_pipeline_fragend_arbfp_add_layer (CoglPipeline *pipeline,
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
CoglPipelineLayer *layer,
unsigned long layers_difference)
{
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
ArbfpProgramState *arbfp_program_state = get_arbfp_program_state (pipeline);
CoglPipelineLayer *combine_authority =
_cogl_pipeline_layer_get_authority (layer,
COGL_PIPELINE_LAYER_STATE_COMBINE);
CoglPipelineLayerBigState *big_state = combine_authority->big_state;
/* Notes...
*
* We are ignoring the issue of texture indirection limits until
* someone complains (Ref Section 3.11.6 in the ARB_fragment_program
* spec)
*
* There always five TEMPs named tmp0, tmp1 and tmp2, tmp3 and tmp4
* available and these constants: 'one' = {1, 1, 1, 1}, 'half'
* {.5, .5, .5, .5}, 'two' = {2, 2, 2, 2}, 'minus_one' = {-1, -1,
* -1, -1}
*
* tmp0-2 are intended for dealing with some of the texture combine
* operands (e.g. GL_ONE_MINUS_SRC_COLOR) tmp3/4 are for dealing
* with the GL_ADD_SIGNED texture combine and the GL_DOT3_RGB[A]
* functions.
*
* Each layer outputs to the TEMP called "output", and reads from
* output if it needs to refer to GL_PREVIOUS. (we detect if we are
* layer0 so we will read fragment.color for GL_PREVIOUS in that
* case)
*
* We aim to do all the channels together if the same function is
* used for RGB as for A.
*
* We aim to avoid string duplication / allocations during codegen.
*
* We are careful to only saturate when writing to output.
*/
if (!arbfp_program_state->source)
return TRUE;
if (!_cogl_pipeline_need_texture_combine_separate (combine_authority))
{
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
append_masked_combine (pipeline,
layer,
COGL_BLEND_STRING_CHANNEL_MASK_RGBA,
big_state->texture_combine_rgb_func,
big_state->texture_combine_rgb_src,
big_state->texture_combine_rgb_op);
}
else if (big_state->texture_combine_rgb_func ==
COGL_PIPELINE_COMBINE_FUNC_DOT3_RGBA)
{
/* GL_DOT3_RGBA Is a bit weird as a GL_COMBINE_RGB function
* since if you use it, it overrides your ALPHA function...
*/
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
append_masked_combine (pipeline,
layer,
COGL_BLEND_STRING_CHANNEL_MASK_RGBA,
big_state->texture_combine_rgb_func,
big_state->texture_combine_rgb_src,
big_state->texture_combine_rgb_op);
}
else
{
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
append_masked_combine (pipeline,
layer,
COGL_BLEND_STRING_CHANNEL_MASK_RGB,
big_state->texture_combine_rgb_func,
big_state->texture_combine_rgb_src,
big_state->texture_combine_rgb_op);
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
append_masked_combine (pipeline,
layer,
COGL_BLEND_STRING_CHANNEL_MASK_ALPHA,
big_state->texture_combine_alpha_func,
big_state->texture_combine_alpha_src,
big_state->texture_combine_alpha_op);
}
return TRUE;
}
gboolean
_cogl_pipeline_fragend_arbfp_passthrough (CoglPipeline *pipeline)
{
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
ArbfpProgramState *arbfp_program_state = get_arbfp_program_state (pipeline);
if (!arbfp_program_state->source)
return TRUE;
g_string_append (arbfp_program_state->source,
"MOV output, fragment.color.primary;\n");
return TRUE;
}
typedef struct _UpdateConstantsState
{
int unit;
gboolean update_all;
ArbfpProgramState *arbfp_program_state;
} UpdateConstantsState;
static gboolean
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
update_constants_cb (CoglPipeline *pipeline,
int layer_index,
void *user_data)
{
UpdateConstantsState *state = user_data;
ArbfpProgramState *arbfp_program_state = state->arbfp_program_state;
UnitState *unit_state = &arbfp_program_state->unit_state[state->unit++];
_COGL_GET_CONTEXT (ctx, FALSE);
if (state->update_all || unit_state->dirty_combine_constant)
{
float constant[4];
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
_cogl_pipeline_get_layer_combine_constant (pipeline,
layer_index,
constant);
GE (ctx, glProgramLocalParameter4fv (GL_FRAGMENT_PROGRAM_ARB,
unit_state->constant_id,
constant));
unit_state->dirty_combine_constant = FALSE;
}
return TRUE;
}
static gboolean
_cogl_pipeline_fragend_arbfp_end (CoglPipeline *pipeline,
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
unsigned long pipelines_difference)
{
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
ArbfpProgramState *arbfp_program_state = get_arbfp_program_state (pipeline);
GLuint gl_program;
_COGL_GET_CONTEXT (ctx, FALSE);
if (arbfp_program_state->source)
{
GLenum gl_error;
COGL_STATIC_COUNTER (fragend_arbfp_compile_counter,
"arbfp compile counter",
"Increments each time a new ARBfp "
"program is compiled",
0 /* no application private data */);
COGL_COUNTER_INC (_cogl_uprof_context, fragend_arbfp_compile_counter);
g_string_append (arbfp_program_state->source,
"MOV result.color,output;\n");
g_string_append (arbfp_program_state->source, "END\n");
if (G_UNLIKELY (COGL_DEBUG_ENABLED (COGL_DEBUG_SHOW_SOURCE)))
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
g_message ("pipeline program:\n%s", arbfp_program_state->source->str);
GE (ctx, glGenPrograms (1, &arbfp_program_state->gl_program));
GE (ctx, glBindProgram (GL_FRAGMENT_PROGRAM_ARB,
arbfp_program_state->gl_program));
while ((gl_error = ctx->glGetError ()) != GL_NO_ERROR)
;
ctx->glProgramString (GL_FRAGMENT_PROGRAM_ARB,
GL_PROGRAM_FORMAT_ASCII_ARB,
arbfp_program_state->source->len,
arbfp_program_state->source->str);
if (ctx->glGetError () != GL_NO_ERROR)
{
g_warning ("\n%s\n%s",
arbfp_program_state->source->str,
ctx->glGetString (GL_PROGRAM_ERROR_STRING_ARB));
}
arbfp_program_state->source = NULL;
if (G_LIKELY (!(COGL_DEBUG_ENABLED (COGL_DEBUG_DISABLE_PROGRAM_CACHES))))
{
CoglPipeline *key;
/* XXX: I wish there was a way to insert into a GHashTable
* with a pre-calculated hash value since there is a cost to
* calculating the hash of a CoglPipeline and in this case
* we know we have already called _cogl_pipeline_hash during
* _cogl_pipeline_fragend_arbfp_backend_start so we could pass the
* value through to here to avoid hashing it again.
*/
/* XXX: Any keys referenced by the hash table need to remain
* valid all the while that there are corresponding values,
* so for now we simply make a copy of the current authority
* pipeline.
*
* FIXME: A problem with this is that our key into the cache
* may hold references to some arbitrary user textures which
* will now be kept alive indefinitly which is a shame. A
* better solution will be to derive a special "key
* pipeline" from the authority which derives from the base
* Cogl pipeline (to avoid affecting the lifetime of any
* other pipelines) and only takes a copy of the state that
* relates to the arbfp program and references small dummy
* textures instead of potentially large user textures. */
key = cogl_pipeline_copy (arbfp_program_state->arbfp_authority);
arbfp_program_state_ref (arbfp_program_state);
g_hash_table_insert (ctx->arbfp_cache, key, arbfp_program_state);
if (G_UNLIKELY (g_hash_table_size (ctx->arbfp_cache) > 50))
{
static gboolean seen = FALSE;
if (!seen)
g_warning ("Over 50 separate ARBfp programs have been "
"generated which is very unusual, so something "
"is probably wrong!\n");
seen = TRUE;
}
}
/* The authority is only valid during codegen since the program
* state may have a longer lifetime than the original authority
* it is created for. */
arbfp_program_state->arbfp_authority = NULL;
}
if (arbfp_program_state->user_program != COGL_INVALID_HANDLE)
{
Merge cogl-program-{gl,gles}.c into one cogl-program.c This merges the two implementations of CoglProgram for the GLES2 and GL backends into one. The implementation is more like the GLES2 version which would track the uniform values and delay sending them to GL. CoglProgram is now effectively just a GList of CoglShaders along with an array of stored uniform values. CoglProgram never actually creates a GL program, instead this is left up to the GLSL material backend. This is necessary on GLES2 where we may need to relink the user's program with different generated shaders depending on the other emulated fixed function state. It will also be necessary in the future GLSL backends for regular OpenGL. The GLSL and ARBfp material backends are now the ones that create and link the GL program from the list of shaders. The linked program is attached to the private material state so that it can be reused if the CoglProgram is used again with the same material. This does mean the program will get relinked if the shader is used with multiple materials. This will be particularly bad if the legacy cogl_program_use function is used because that effectively always makes one-shot materials. This problem will hopefully be alleviated if we make a hash table with a cache of generated programs. The cogl program would then need to become part of the hash lookup. Each CoglProgram now has an age counter which is incremented every time a shader is added. This is used by the material backends to detect when we need to create a new GL program for the user program. The internal _cogl_use_program function now takes a GL program handle rather than a CoglProgram. It no longer needs any special differences for GLES2. The GLES2 wrapper function now also uses this function to bind its generated shaders. The ARBfp shaders no longer store a copy of the program source but instead just directly create a program object when cogl_shader_source is called. This avoids having to reupload the source if the same shader is used in multiple materials. There are currently a few gross hacks to get the GLES2 backend to work with this. The problem is that the GLSL material backend is now generating a complete GL program but the GLES2 wrapper still needs to add its fixed function emulation shaders if the program doesn't provide either a vertex or fragment shader. There is a new function in the GLES2 wrapper called _cogl_gles2_use_program which replaces the previous cogl_program_use implementation. It extracts the GL shaders from the GL program object and creates a new GL program containing all of the shaders plus its fixed function emulation. This new program is returned to the GLSL material backend so that it can still flush the custom uniforms using it. The user_program is attached to the GLES2 settings struct as before but its stored using a GL program handle rather than a CoglProgram pointer. This hack will go away once the GLSL material backend replaces the GLES2 wrapper by generating the code itself. Under Mesa this currently generates some GL errors when glClear is called in test-cogl-shader-glsl. I think this is due to a bug in Mesa however. When the user program on the material is changed the GLSL backend gets notified and deletes the GL program that it linked from the user shaders. The program will still be bound in GL however. Leaving a deleted shader bound exposes a bug in Mesa's glClear implementation. More details are here: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31194
2010-10-15 13:00:29 -04:00
/* An arbfp program should contain exactly one shader which we
can use directly */
CoglProgram *program = arbfp_program_state->user_program;
CoglShader *shader = program->attached_shaders->data;
gl_program = shader->gl_handle;
}
else
gl_program = arbfp_program_state->gl_program;
GE (ctx, glBindProgram (GL_FRAGMENT_PROGRAM_ARB, gl_program));
_cogl_use_fragment_program (0, COGL_PIPELINE_PROGRAM_TYPE_ARBFP);
if (arbfp_program_state->user_program == COGL_INVALID_HANDLE)
{
UpdateConstantsState state;
state.unit = 0;
state.arbfp_program_state = arbfp_program_state;
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
/* If this arbfp program was last used with a different pipeline
* then we need to ensure we update all program.local params */
state.update_all =
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
pipeline != arbfp_program_state->last_used_for_pipeline;
cogl_pipeline_foreach_layer (pipeline,
update_constants_cb,
&state);
}
Merge cogl-program-{gl,gles}.c into one cogl-program.c This merges the two implementations of CoglProgram for the GLES2 and GL backends into one. The implementation is more like the GLES2 version which would track the uniform values and delay sending them to GL. CoglProgram is now effectively just a GList of CoglShaders along with an array of stored uniform values. CoglProgram never actually creates a GL program, instead this is left up to the GLSL material backend. This is necessary on GLES2 where we may need to relink the user's program with different generated shaders depending on the other emulated fixed function state. It will also be necessary in the future GLSL backends for regular OpenGL. The GLSL and ARBfp material backends are now the ones that create and link the GL program from the list of shaders. The linked program is attached to the private material state so that it can be reused if the CoglProgram is used again with the same material. This does mean the program will get relinked if the shader is used with multiple materials. This will be particularly bad if the legacy cogl_program_use function is used because that effectively always makes one-shot materials. This problem will hopefully be alleviated if we make a hash table with a cache of generated programs. The cogl program would then need to become part of the hash lookup. Each CoglProgram now has an age counter which is incremented every time a shader is added. This is used by the material backends to detect when we need to create a new GL program for the user program. The internal _cogl_use_program function now takes a GL program handle rather than a CoglProgram. It no longer needs any special differences for GLES2. The GLES2 wrapper function now also uses this function to bind its generated shaders. The ARBfp shaders no longer store a copy of the program source but instead just directly create a program object when cogl_shader_source is called. This avoids having to reupload the source if the same shader is used in multiple materials. There are currently a few gross hacks to get the GLES2 backend to work with this. The problem is that the GLSL material backend is now generating a complete GL program but the GLES2 wrapper still needs to add its fixed function emulation shaders if the program doesn't provide either a vertex or fragment shader. There is a new function in the GLES2 wrapper called _cogl_gles2_use_program which replaces the previous cogl_program_use implementation. It extracts the GL shaders from the GL program object and creates a new GL program containing all of the shaders plus its fixed function emulation. This new program is returned to the GLSL material backend so that it can still flush the custom uniforms using it. The user_program is attached to the GLES2 settings struct as before but its stored using a GL program handle rather than a CoglProgram pointer. This hack will go away once the GLSL material backend replaces the GLES2 wrapper by generating the code itself. Under Mesa this currently generates some GL errors when glClear is called in test-cogl-shader-glsl. I think this is due to a bug in Mesa however. When the user program on the material is changed the GLSL backend gets notified and deletes the GL program that it linked from the user shaders. The program will still be bound in GL however. Leaving a deleted shader bound exposes a bug in Mesa's glClear implementation. More details are here: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31194
2010-10-15 13:00:29 -04:00
else
{
CoglProgram *program = arbfp_program_state->user_program;
gboolean program_changed;
/* If the shader has changed since it was last flushed then we
need to update all uniforms */
program_changed = program->age != arbfp_program_state->user_program_age;
_cogl_program_flush_uniforms (program, gl_program, program_changed);
arbfp_program_state->user_program_age = program->age;
}
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
/* We need to track what pipeline used this arbfp program last since
* we will need to update program.local params when switching
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
* between different pipelines. */
arbfp_program_state->last_used_for_pipeline = pipeline;
return TRUE;
}
static void
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
dirty_arbfp_program_state (CoglPipeline *pipeline)
{
CoglPipelineFragendARBfpPrivate *priv;
_COGL_GET_CONTEXT (ctx, NO_RETVAL);
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
priv = get_arbfp_priv (pipeline);
if (!priv)
return;
if (priv->arbfp_program_state)
{
arbfp_program_state_unref (priv->arbfp_program_state);
priv->arbfp_program_state = NULL;
}
}
static void
_cogl_pipeline_fragend_arbfp_pipeline_pre_change_notify (
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
CoglPipeline *pipeline,
CoglPipelineState change,
const CoglColor *new_color)
{
if ((change & COGL_PIPELINE_STATE_AFFECTS_FRAGMENT_CODEGEN))
dirty_arbfp_program_state (pipeline);
}
/* NB: layers are considered immutable once they have any dependants
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
* so although multiple pipelines can end up depending on a single
* static layer, we can guarantee that if a layer is being *changed*
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
* then it can only have one pipeline depending on it.
*
* XXX: Don't forget this is *pre* change, we can't read the new value
* yet!
*/
static void
_cogl_pipeline_fragend_arbfp_layer_pre_change_notify (
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
CoglPipeline *owner,
CoglPipelineLayer *layer,
CoglPipelineLayerState change)
{
CoglPipelineFragendARBfpPrivate *priv = get_arbfp_priv (owner);
if (!priv)
return;
if ((change & COGL_PIPELINE_LAYER_STATE_AFFECTS_FRAGMENT_CODEGEN))
{
dirty_arbfp_program_state (owner);
return;
}
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
if (change & COGL_PIPELINE_LAYER_STATE_COMBINE_CONSTANT)
{
ArbfpProgramState *arbfp_program_state = get_arbfp_program_state (owner);
if (arbfp_program_state)
{
int unit_index = _cogl_pipeline_layer_get_unit_index (layer);
arbfp_program_state->unit_state[unit_index].dirty_combine_constant =
TRUE;
}
}
/* TODO: we could be saving snippets of texture combine code along
* with each layer and then when a layer changes we would just free
* the snippet. */
return;
}
static void
_cogl_pipeline_fragend_arbfp_free_priv (CoglPipeline *pipeline)
{
CoglPipelineFragendARBfpPrivate *priv = get_arbfp_priv (pipeline);
if (priv)
{
if (priv->arbfp_program_state)
arbfp_program_state_unref (priv->arbfp_program_state);
g_slice_free (CoglPipelineFragendARBfpPrivate, priv);
cogl: rename CoglMaterial -> CoglPipeline This applies an API naming change that's been deliberated over for a while now which is to rename CoglMaterial to CoglPipeline. For now the new pipeline API is marked as experimental and public headers continue to talk about materials not pipelines. The CoglMaterial API is now maintained in terms of the cogl_pipeline API internally. Currently this API is targeting Cogl 2.0 so we will have time to integrate it properly with other upcoming Cogl 2.0 work. The basic reasons for the rename are: - That the term "material" implies to many people that they are constrained to fragment processing; perhaps as some kind of high-level texture abstraction. - In Clutter they get exposed by ClutterTexture actors which may be re-inforcing this misconception. - When comparing how other frameworks use the term material, a material sometimes describes a multi-pass fragment processing technique which isn't the case in Cogl. - In code, "CoglPipeline" will hopefully be a much more self documenting summary of what these objects represent; a full GPU pipeline configuration including, for example, vertex processing, fragment processing and blending. - When considering the API documentation story, at some point we need a document introducing developers to how the "GPU pipeline" works so it should become intuitive that CoglPipeline maps back to that description of the GPU pipeline. - This is consistent in terminology and concept to OpenGL 4's new pipeline object which is a container for program objects. Note: The cogl-material.[ch] files have been renamed to cogl-material-compat.[ch] because otherwise git doesn't seem to treat the change as a moving the old cogl-material.c->cogl-pipeline.c and so we loose all our git-blame history.
2010-10-27 13:54:57 -04:00
set_arbfp_priv (pipeline, NULL);
}
}
const CoglPipelineFragend _cogl_pipeline_arbfp_fragend =
{
_cogl_pipeline_fragend_arbfp_start,
_cogl_pipeline_fragend_arbfp_add_layer,
_cogl_pipeline_fragend_arbfp_passthrough,
_cogl_pipeline_fragend_arbfp_end,
_cogl_pipeline_fragend_arbfp_pipeline_pre_change_notify,
NULL,
_cogl_pipeline_fragend_arbfp_layer_pre_change_notify,
_cogl_pipeline_fragend_arbfp_free_priv
};
#endif /* COGL_PIPELINE_FRAGEND_ARBFP */