[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Public WebGL] WEBGL_debug_shader_precision extension proposal
It's been a problem for a while that WebGL developers accidentally
write desktop-only content because they couldn't test on mobile
devices that have lower precision. Olli's work helps address this
longstanding problem. He's found a significant amount of content
(including from expert graphics developers) that doesn't work properly
on mobile hardware due to its lower precision.
I think it's important to get this functionality into the hands of
developers. To be pragmatic, there are two options for doing so in a
1. Provide it in the browser. Firefox's webgl.min_capability_mode pref
is useful to help developers see if their content will run on low-end
devices. Precision emulation could plausibly be put behind a pref such
as this, instead of exposed as a WebGL extension. It could also be
built into browsers' developer tools, though that's a longer path.
2. Use Emscripten to compile ANGLE's shader translator, provide it as
this work is not a viable option. There will be too many bugs and
corner cases to handle.
Option 1 can be provided fairly quickly in at least a couple of
browsers with very little work. It's for this reason I think it is
worth exposing this extension.
Option 2 is certainly better in the long term, and from the standpoint
of providing the functionality on all browsers transparently.
I'll invest some time to see how feasible it is to compile ANGLE's
shader translator with Emscripten. If it looks like this is easy then
we can pursue that option. Landing Olli's patches to ANGLE will
proceed in parallel.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Olli Etuaho <email@example.com> wrote:
> I've already written some of the code in ANGLE because it was the only
> reasonable way to write the code. When I started to work on this, I was
> looking at two options:
> a) Implementing this inside ANGLE, which already had proven,
> production-quality infrastructure for parsing GLSL and pretty good precision
> b) Writing my own GLSL parser.
> Since I wanted to get this done without pouring a huge amount of time into
> it, I went for option a) after discussing this with ANGLE maintainers.
> Granted, I didn't know of Tibor's GLSL debugger project back then, but that
> also seems to have a long way to go before something like this could be
> integrated. After that I started thinking about different ways to expose
> this, all of which have their ups and downs.
> WebGL extension:
> +The least work to implement and maintain, fairly convenient for both manual
> and automated testing of JS apps, every major desktop platform has some
> browser where this could be used
> -Conflicts with the idea of a minimal API, less flexibility for changes,
> doesn't help people who exclusively use non-ANGLE browsers for development
> Browser developer tools:
> +Convenient for manual testing of JS apps, not much work to implement and
> maintain either, more flexibility
> -Not convenient for automated testing of JS apps, doesn't help people who
> exclusively use non-ANGLE browsers for development, exact behavior may be
> more opaque to users
> Emscripten-compiled library:
> +Available absolutely everywhere, browser APIs stay minimal, convenient for
> both manual and automated testing of JS apps, the most flexibility
> -A lot more work to setup and maintain, exact behavior may be more opaque to
> The positives seemed to outweigh the negatives in the case of a WebGL
> extension, so I submitted the proposal. I also think the browser vendors
> agree that this problem is so big and fundamental that it makes sense for
> them to spend some effort to help fix it. But maybe the principle of having
> a minimal API is more important than the pragmatic considerations, and I
> should prioritize getting this exposed as a part of browser developer tools,
> and then maybe later as a library, depending on what results from getting
> this out there in the developer tools. I was not expecting this level of
> opposition to the extension.
> We could also consider other measures to mitigate the problem: for example,
> always using highp precision in vertex shaders, disregarding their precision
> qualifiers. This would be allowed in an implementation of WebGL 1.0 as it is
> currently specified, and could be explicitly specified for WebGL 2.0. The
> performance cost for getting more content to run correctly on some of the
> more exotic WebGL platforms might be a good tradeoff. I'd also suggest
> changing what the MDN WebGL best practices page says about mediump in
> fragment shaders, since that advice has probably led to more bugs appearing
> than it has helped to avoid.
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> on
> behalf of Gregg Tavares <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 6:43 AM
> To: Olli Etuaho
> Cc: Tibor Ouden, den; Gregg Tavares; Jeff Gilbert; Mark Callow; Florian
> Bösch; Kenneth Russell; public webgl
> Subject: Re: [Public WebGL] WEBGL_debug_shader_precision extension proposal
> If I understand correctly your arguments boil down to (a) You've already
> written the code and (b) It's based on ANGLE which is in C++ therefore you
> can shove it into Chrome. And maybe Firefox and Safari can use it too. Not
> IE. You're still requiring all browser teams to invest time into this
> integration. They're stuck maintaining it forever. Of course they can choose
> to never support it since it's an extension but then you aren't really
> achieving your goal in that case.
> I still don't see the point of making it an extension. Like Tibor said,
> extensions should be for core functionality.
>> The standard has gone on for years without any tools to address this
>> fairly large problem.
> While tools to help with this are great the standard doesn't need to address
> this. A library will address this better for all the reasons mentioned
> before. I'm really not seeing the argument that it should be an extension
> except you've already written some code. It seems like it should come down
> it if it's the right thing to do. Maybe it is but I haven't seen a good
> argument for why. Making it an extension won't make it any more likely to
> be used. In fact the most likely way for something like this to be used
> would be to add it to the WebGL Inspector or something similar so that the
> user doesn't have to change any code, they can just visit any page and click
> some button that's outside the page. You could also build it into a
> browser's devtools, but that again won't help because it will only be
> available in those browsers that implement it.
> It seems like if you really want to hit the most devs you'd make it a
> library because then any dev on any browser could use it.
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Olli Etuaho <email@example.com> wrote:
>> I don't think that being able to set a ton of settings is actually that
>> useful. If a shader runs correctly on a configuration where the floating
>> point values have the minimum number of bits allowed by the spec and where
>> subnormal numbers are flushed to zero, it is very likely to also run
>> correctly on a configuration with a slightly higher number of bits and where
>> subnormal numbers are not flushed to zero. So an explosion of the amount of
>> test configurations can be avoided by only testing in an environment which
>> implements the minimums.
>> I agree that not simulating the internals of built-in functions is an
>> issue in the extension as it is currently specified, and I could still put
>> some work into evaluating the significance of that, but we'll also have to
>> remember that perfect is the enemy of good enough. The standard has gone on
>> for years without any tools to address this fairly large problem. Now, when
>> a solution comes along that would help with more than 90% of the issues, it
>> seems like an odd response to me to say that this won't do and something
>> better is needed. The working group agreed in a recent meeting that the
>> extension is potentially a good way to expose this functionality for
>> pragmatic reasons, even if it's also going to become a part of browser
>> developer tools and even if ideally a JS library would be preferable.
>> That being said, I'm interested in hearing more about the debugging tool
>> you're working on, it sounds like it can help developers fix related
>> problems as well. Do you have it up somewhere on the web? Feel free to reply
>> outside the thread if you think that's appropriate.
>> From: Tibor Ouden, den <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 3:53 PM
>> To: Olli Etuaho
>> Cc: Gregg Tavares; Jeff Gilbert; Mark Callow; Florian Bösch; Kenneth
>> Russell; public webgl
>> Subject: Re: [Public WebGL] WEBGL_debug_shader_precision extension
>> To easily change the precision to inspect the effect on the computation is
>> useful debug functionality.
>> But a next request could be to have control over the exact count of bits
>> in the significand.
>> And then I would like to specify the amount of guard bits used.
>> And then for sqrt() I would like to be able to specify a certain look up
>> table algorithm because the gpu
>> in device xyz uses that.
>> Change the treatment of subnormal numbers ?
>> Emulate the 'exact' numerical behaviour of gpu xyz ?
>> ... etc.
>> I think this is part of a larger set of debug features related to
>> numerical precision issues.
>> I think extensions should be related to the functionality of WebGL
>> (running code from a web page on the gpu)
>> Everything related to enhancing the implementation process of a polished
>> WebGL application is 'tool' functionality
>> and should be done in a library if possible in my opinion. It allows for
>> more flexibility and prevents the WebGL
>> spec from increasing.
>> If you allow this functionality to be an extension where do you draw the
>> line ?
>> I have nothing against a browser vendor implementing a full blown shader
>> debugger in their browser.
>> But that is not part of the WebGL spec.
>> While attempting to implement a physics engine on the gpu
>> using WebGL, I encountered some interesting numerical issues.
>> Due to the experiences with that project I started working on a shader
>> the user to inspect every single variable by rewriting the shader on the
>> fly and warn against common mistakes (at least for me :-) ).
>> Specifying reduced precision is an interesting feature, as is selecting
>> the 'exact' numerical
>> profile of target device xyz.
>> Also warning against constructs like vec3(float, vec3) (silent drop of
>> last component of 2nd argument)
>> Not setting gl_PointSize when rendering points
>> This done in in-between-projects-time so will take a while.
>> 2014-11-14 11:10 GMT+01:00 Olli Etuaho <email@example.com>:
>>> I agree that having a tool for detecting other kinds of undefined shader
>>> behavior would be useful. There's multiple kinds:
>>> -Math function limitations (asin, acos, atan, pow, log, log2, sqrt,
>>> inversesqrt, clamp, smoothstep all have these)
>>> -Accessing textures inside non-uniform control flow
>>> -Reads from uninitialized shader variables and missing return values
>>> -Not writing to gl_Position
>>> -Some details of integer computations
>>> But even with all of these possibilities of undefined behavior, most of
>>> the errors I've seen are still definitely related to precision. To put some
>>> data behind my claims that they're extremely widespread: they're in some
>>> three.js examples, some Blend4Web demos, all except the latest version of
>>> Babylon.js, turbulenz engine, some other proprietary WebGL content, and as a
>>> guesstimate in half of recent shader demos in glslsandbox and shadertoy. Of
>>> course you won't ever see the precision issues unless testing on a variety
>>> of mobile hardware.
>>> If someone is willing to put in the work to implement a more versatile
>>> shader debugging library, that would be useful, but I think the precision
>>> emulation can still stand on its own. Having it as an extension in browsers
>>> doesn't prevent building more things on top of it.
>>> From: Gregg Tavares <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 3:31 AM
>>> To: Olli Etuaho
>>> Cc: Jeff Gilbert; Gregg Tavares; Mark Callow; Florian Bösch; Kenneth
>>> Russell; public webgl
>>> Subject: Re: [Public WebGL] WEBGL_debug_shader_precision extension
>>> As an example of something that I'd want added to this and an argument
>>> for making it a library,
>>> I'd like to see something that re-wrote the shaders to find all the
>>> undefined behavior. For example I just tried to use this shader on iOS
>>> It turns out it's calling pow(x, y) with x < 0 which is undefined
>>> according the spec and therefore doesn't work on all GPUs.
>>> That seems like something a shader debugging re-writing library could
>>> easily do, maybe by rewriting pow to some kind of expression that returns a
>>> different color by mod(gl_FragCoord, 2) or something such that the results
>>> hopefully stick out. Personally I've found these errors far more common than
>>> precision errors but that might just be my experience.
>>> It seems like other re-writes for debugging would be useful too. You
>>> could probably implement shader debugger. But if you make it an extension no
>>> one else can't augment it.
>>> Also not every browser uses ANGLE AFAIK.
>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Olli Etuaho <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> I do see the upsides of having this as a library, but as I stated
>>>> before, the best way to implement said library would be to run ANGLE's
>>>> shader compiler through emscripten. This is possible to do whether the
>>>> extension is accepted or not, but from a purely technical perspective, it's
>>>> much more work and overhead. As counterpoints to Gregg's message:
>>>> -The specification is fairly small, so making it exact is not very hard.
>>>> -The specification can still spend a while as a proposal/draft, so it
>>>> can be more freely edited and the issues can be worked out.
>>>> -I'll be doing the implementation work in ANGLE. ANGLE maintainers
>>>> already expressed that they'd likely be willing to accept the patches. After
>>>> that, it's fairly trivial to expose the extension. I already have a working
>>>> prototype for Chromium. So I hope it will require only a minimal amount of
>>>> work from anyone else.
>>>> -I can't foresee any pressing need to extend and update the extension.
>>>> The extension should be compatible with both ESSL 1.00 and ESSL 3.00 already
>>>> in its current form. The need to do large updates to it would arise only if
>>>> WebGL switched to a drastically different shading language.
>>>> -This is an extension for testing, so not having support in every
>>>> browser is more of a slight inconvenience rather than something that would
>>>> greatly hinder its usefulness.
>>>> -If it was a library, a spec like this would still be beneficial, so
>>>> that what it does would be clear to the user.
>>>> I also can't stress enough how widespread precision-related shader bugs
>>>> are. I've seen them frequently in content developed by professional and
>>>> hobbyist developers alike, every once in a while even in content that was
>>>> specifically written with mobile devices in mind. If you're still not
>>>> convinced, I'll have to look at other alternatives besides the extension,
>>>> but something needs to be done, and I think tooling like this is a big part
>>>> of the answer.
>>>> From: Jeff Gilbert <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 4:26 AM
>>>> To: Gregg Tavares
>>>> Cc: Mark Callow; Florian Bösch; Olli Etuaho; Kenneth Russell; public
>>>> Subject: Re: [Public WebGL] WEBGL_debug_shader_precision extension
>>>> I agree with Gregg.
>>>> I will add that if it's something that we feel is important enough as a
>>>> working group, we could canonize the library and maintain it as part of our
>>>> github repo.
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Gregg Tavares" <email@example.com>
>>>> To: "Mark Callow" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>>> Cc: "Florian Bösch" <email@example.com>, "Jeff Gilbert"
>>>> <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Olli Etuaho" <email@example.com>, "Kenneth
>>>> Russell" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "public webgl" <email@example.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 6:16:19 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Public WebGL] WEBGL_debug_shader_precision extension
>>>> As an extension what it does has to be specifically specified.
>>>> As an extension it can't be upgraded without making and proposing a new
>>>> As an extension it passes all work to the browser vendors who each need
>>>> implement it
>>>> As a library it can be updated and extended whenever
>>>> As a library it only needs one implementation and everyone can use it
>>>> As a library it can do whatever it wants, no spec needed
>>>> From the discussion above it doesn't seems like it needs to be an
>>>> extension. It doesn't seem like there is some specific OpenGL
>>>> that needs to be exposed to make it possible. It also doesn't sound like
>>>> speed issue given that the resulting shaders are up to 10x slower.
>>>> Also as a library it should be easy to patch it the same way the WebGL
>>>> Inspector patches itself in or various other libraries that patch things
>>>> like WebGLRenderingContext.prototype.compileShader
>>>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Mark Callow <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> > > On Nov 12, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Florian Bösch <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > What's wrong with it is that it does not allow you to isolate an
>>>> > > issue
>>>> > with any of your shader code buried in use somewhere in your
>>>> > application.
>>>> > >
>>>> > You have to find either the buried shader code or the buried call to
>>>> > compileShader for that shader. These efforts may or may not be much
>>>> > different, depending on the structure of your code. I would not object
>>>> > to
>>>> > supporting both an API toggle and a pragma, getting the best of both
>>>> > worlds.
>>>> > Regards
>>>> > -Mark
>>>> > -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> > You are currently subscribed to firstname.lastname@example.org.
>>>> > To unsubscribe, send an email to email@example.com with
>>>> > the following command in the body of your email:
>>>> > unsubscribe public_webgl
>>>> > -----------------------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe, send an email to email@example.com with
the following command in the body of your email: