3 ms·
I suppose current options aren't optimal. Or at least that could be a valid motivation to create one. If the motivation is to replace SPIR-V itself, then it's
by shmerl 7y ago
I suppose current options aren't optimal. Or at least that could be a valid motivation to create one.
If the motivation is to replace SPIR-V itself, then it's not valid.
- mwkaufma 7y agoExcept it wasn't designed to be an "optimal target for SPIR-V" -- it was designed by Apple according to Metal's semantics, to promote Metal over Vulkan, and had to be rejiggered. It's worse, by your standard, than existing, battle-proven GLSL/HLSL toolchains.
- kvark 7y agoThis is not correct. The WGSL is renamed from Tint, which is a Google's proposal for a shading language, in agreement with all parties.
- kevingadd 7y agoThey're on record that their motive is disputes with Khronos, it's in some past meeting notes.
- shmerl 7y agoThen this should be rejected.
- gfxgirl 7y agoreject it and there will be no WebGPU for 1.5 billion iOS devices just like there is no WebGL2 for 1.5 billion iOS devices.
- shmerl 7y agoWhy should Apple dictate their approach to everyone else then? If they are so resolved to remain outsiders technology wise because they are crazy bent on NIH, let them be outsiders. I'd say everyone else should take a hard stance on this and show Apple to the door, instead of dancing under their tune.
- xenadu02 7y agoIt's called a "standards process" for a reason. Even if you personally have a different opinion the point of a standard is to get everyone implementing it on-board with that standard. Releasing a standard that a major member opposes and won't implement is a pointless exercise.
- imtringued 7y agoThe motivation is to salvage SPIR-V in a way that makes Apple happy.