Am Montag, 17. März 2008 12:18:11 schrieb H. Verbeet:
Supporting ATI fragment shader is useful, obviously. What I'm not so sure about is positioning it as an ffp replacement.
Do you mean the term "ffp replacement", or what the code is doing? I for one call our nvrc code an ffp replacement as well, however, there's no sharp border between programmable and fixed function functionality. I've seen articles which called GL_ARB_texture_env_combine "programmable" as well.
I don't know if we can support 1.x pixel shaders properly using atifs because texkill and texdepth are missing. However, the visual test shows that the texdepth test is completely broken on my r200 card on Windows, and texkill basically works, but doesn't conform to the refrast and behavior of newer cards, so games should not really use those instructions.