The significant relaxed limits in SM 4+ might help as the compilation is now more straight forward. I am not sure if Angle currently uses SM 2 or 3. 2 was always a problem as the limits were so low that the compiler needs to use any possible trick to get the HLSL code in these.
While I like to see an update (it would open the way for more extensions that would allow AAA graphics with WebGL) I am not sure how many systems would lost their WebGL support this way. With the concerns about the limited time that people can spend on WebGL development task I am not sure if going forward with two versions of Angle can be done.
Von: Brandon Jones [email@example.com]
Gesendet: Samstag, 2. Februar 2013 17:33
An: Florian Bösch
Cc: Kornmann, Ralf; public webgl
Betreff: Re: [Public WebGL] ESSL -> HLSL -> cso, do we really need to do this?
I've never looked into the D3D10+ compile times much, but have they improved over D3D9 at all? Ralf mentioned that a straight-to-bytecode approach would stop working once we upgrade, but if the compiler is better it may be a non-issue.
Do we have any stats on that?
On Saturday, February 2, 2013, Florian Bösch wrote: