Simplify OSL node implementations #1185
Conversation
This changelist simplifies the OSL implementations of common nodes such as 'if', 'add', and 'subtract', removing duplicate code and harmonizing inline implementations where possible.
|
Updated render comparisons between GLSL and OSL: |
| // Support functions for OSL implementations of the MaterialX nodes. | ||
| // | ||
|
|
||
| float mx_ternary(int expr, float v1, float v2) { if (expr) return v1; else return v2; } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
N.B. You can say expr ? v1 : v2 in OSL.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@lgritz I took that approach at first, but it looks like OSL's built-in ternary operator doesn't yet handle values that are structures, which is the case when v1 and v2 are of type color4, vector4, vector2, or matrix33. Let me know if I should write this up as an issue on the OSL GitHub, or if perhaps I'm missing a detail that would allow me to use this approach across all types.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OH. Hmmm. Yeah, please file an issue. You can 'return' a struct, and you can assign a struct, so probably there's just some little missing bit of logic that prevents a struct from being the operands to a ternary operator.
Of course, 50/50 chance I simply don't remember that I looked at this ages ago and bailed when it turned out to be disproportionately difficult. Sometimes you turn over a rock, and when you see what's under there, you just put the rock back and slowly back away. :-)
This changelist simplifies the OSL implementations of common nodes such as 'if', 'add', and 'subtract', removing duplicate code and harmonizing inline implementations where possible.
This changelist simplifies the OSL implementations of common nodes such as 'if', 'add', and 'subtract', removing duplicate code and harmonizing inline implementations where possible.