-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36.1k
DepthTexture: Update depth + stencil textures to work with multi sample RTT, make formats consistent #28460
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
DepthTexture: Update depth + stencil textures to work with multi sample RTT, make formats consistent #28460
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
12 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
c95ea92
update rendertarget setup logic
gkjohnson 4a441ad
rearrange
gkjohnson c250937
simplification
gkjohnson d8a347b
More variable sharing
gkjohnson 8439146
More simplification
gkjohnson 2881478
Support other depth attachment types
gkjohnson cb3b9fc
Updates
gkjohnson c4826b8
fix internal depth buffer target
gkjohnson ea0316b
reduce code redundancy
gkjohnson 4c76d98
Update example
gkjohnson 1fc4fa9
Update docs
gkjohnson 6378078
Add 248 type support
gkjohnson File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure why the if checks were different in the
renderTarget.depthBuffer && ! renderTarget.stencilBufferbranch compared torenderTarget.depthBuffer && renderTarget.stencilBuffer. Why did you choose the below pattern?and not this one:
Are they functional equivalent?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yup! They're the same. I just thought it was easier to read. We can check using a table to make sure they get into the same branches.
Condition Layout 1
Table
Condition Layout 2
Table
Condition Layout 3
Table
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good! I definitely prefer the PRs approach.