Partial compatibility#1435
Merged
Merged
Conversation
You can't use partial pipeline layouts for drawing, so the *which descriptor sets do I need to rebind* use case doesn't apply, but the *is this partial layout compatible with another (potentially partial) layout* use case is sensible, so I made nulls count as compatible with anything.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Pull Request Template
Description
Adds a function to compute the compatibility of partially compatible pipeline layouts. This is useful for things like knowing which descriptor sets need to be rebound when switching between layouts.
At the moment it returns a
std::pairbut could return a struct with named fields instead. It's just marginally less effort to use a pair then switch to a struct than to use a struct then switch to a pair, so a pair's better for prototyping.Type of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.
How Has This Been Tested?
I made a visitor that compared a pipeline layout to everything it found in a subgraph and fed it some data that I knew the correct results for. It gave those results. It was only a small handful of combinations, though, and I didn't try it with any partial layouts. I don't think it's particularly risky as it's pretty similar to the existing
comparefunction and as a new feature, it's not got any existing call sites to cause regressions with.Checklist: