pouët.net

Go to bottom

Best 4k compiler

category: general [glöplog]
the best compiler for 4k is ...mentor
added on the 2009-04-13 19:11:10 by auld auld
the best compiler for 4k is VS2008+Crinkler I guess.

But, Bero/fr should perhaps one day release his hand made compiler+linker+IDE...
added on the 2009-04-13 20:40:01 by iq iq
Actually all my size tests indicated that gcc with proper command line options is about 20 bytes smaller than vs2008, but I'm pretty sure that's subjective with code and my code just happens to like gcc more ;)
added on the 2009-04-13 20:41:48 by ferris ferris
Construct & profile in whatever hll you want then translate to assembler *MANUALLY*, that will allow you to optimize in ways that are impossible to attain with any compilers out there (if you know what you're doing, that is).
added on the 2009-04-13 20:46:21 by hitchhikr hitchhikr
That's exactly what I'm doing today :)
added on the 2009-04-13 20:47:20 by ferris ferris
what auld and iq said!
added on the 2009-04-14 11:27:10 by xTr1m xTr1m
nah, the best compiler for 4k is hitchhikr.. no shit..
added on the 2009-04-14 11:40:45 by nystep nystep
just use the force.
added on the 2009-04-14 11:42:24 by las las
Quote:

. But I think a code "deconstructor/reconstructor" which parse the original GLSL, discarding all unusefull data and renaming non-uniform variables to pack it in a sort of binary format might (might intented) win some place.

The question is : will it perform better than any general packer already there, shaders files got a lot a redundancy normaly...


we tried to do some huffman with our GLSL shader sourcecode but no matter what we tried, we were beaten by crinkler (a few bytes, though) - crinkler just have all the optimizing stuff included - you have to do your decrunching on your own - resulting in additional bytes. let's see, but i am sure that someone will come up with something cool very soon.

so it is still up to the coder to make a really short shader that compresses well.

to bring up the argument again, where i fully agree: the future lies in shaders. really, it is just fucking awesome what you can produce without having to implement it traditionally. saves you a lot of bytes. just think about elevated by iq ;)

implementing the synth in a shader might be a nice approach as well - but i guess the filtering and effect stuff might get complicated. my first tests were nice, but the synth was smaller when doing it traditionally...
added on the 2009-04-14 12:37:04 by pro pro
Quote:

we tried to do some huffman with our GLSL shader sourcecode but no matter what we tried, we were beaten by crinkler (a few bytes, though) - crinkler just have all the optimizing stuff included - you have to do your decrunching on your own - resulting in additional bytes. let's see, but i am sure that someone will come up with something cool very soon.


I think there's a solution to that but this time i will try use it first.

Quote:

to bring up the argument again, where i fully agree: the future lies in shaders. really, it is just fucking awesome what you can produce without having to implement it traditionally. saves you a lot of bytes. just think about elevated by iq ;)


That's what i was claiming everywhere since the beginning.

Quote:

implementing the synth in a shader might be a nice approach as well - but i guess the filtering and effect stuff might get complicated. my first tests were nice, but the synth was smaller when doing it traditionally...


I did that too and it requires a different approach than the usual synths.
added on the 2009-04-14 13:00:11 by hitchhikr hitchhikr
yep, it's nice to see more and more people working on this. muhmac mentioned like 5 or 6 people at BP were working on a shader version of their synth.

hehe, man, i'm looking forward to that :)

regarding the shader compression: crinkler does a nice job here already and as it has the advantage to come with the decrunch routines anyway, it is just freakin cool. but i am sure there is room for optimization though.......... ;)
added on the 2009-04-14 13:19:30 by pro pro
I've been considering that shader synth thing, but I just don't think it's worth the effort. All the texture reads etc required for the approach just doesn't seem to justify the possible (not even guaranteed) size decrease..
added on the 2009-04-14 15:25:22 by ferris ferris
i guess i'll give shader synths a try some day.
but not before dx11/ComputeShaders/OpenCL is available.
dont want to mess with that with the current still graphics oriented design of gpus
added on the 2009-04-14 15:35:03 by gopher gopher

login

Go to top