Lots of languages _already_ compile to SPIR-V - GLSL and HLSL for a start. Why add _another_ syntax?
Apple and Microsoft investigated the possibility of specifying WebHLSL tightly. The main concern was that it's a ton of work in terms of semantics.
At the same time, SPIR-V semantics is fairly well specified, so we as a group figured that the familiar syntax of HLSL is not as important as the proper GPU behavior and our time specifying it. We've yet to see if it was the right decision - we might as well get stuck with discussing the syntax :)
Re:WebGPU Shading Language
by imtringued on Thursday March 12, 2020 @11:22AM
(#22557768)
From a technical standpoint a subset of SPIR-V that is safe to use in web browsers is exactly what is needed. However, there are IP problems that prevent direct usage of SPIR-V. [0] In short W3C needs full ownership of the spec so that it can be completely independent from Khronos. A textual representation of SPIR-V basically sidesteps these problems while still maintaining the ability to have a trivial SPIRV -> WSGL and WSGL -> SPIRV compiler.
They refused to explain what IP problems there are, and given it's Apple, I doubt they are valid.
I suppose current options aren't optimal. Or at least that could be a valid motivation to create one.
If the motivation is to replace SPIR-V itself, then it's not valid.
They're on record that their motive is disputes with Khronos, it's in some past meeting notes.
Then this should be rejected.
reject it and there will be no WebGPU for 1.5 billion iOS devices just like there is no WebGL2 for 1.5 billion iOS devices.
Why should Apple dictate their approach to everyone else then? If they are so resolved to remain outsiders technology wise because they are crazy bent on NIH, let them be outsiders.
I'd say everyone else should take a hard stance on this and show Apple to the door, instead of dancing under their tune.
It's called a "standards process" for a reason. Even if you personally have a different opinion the point of a standard is to get everyone implementing it on-board with that standard.
Releasing a standard that a major member opposes and won't implement is a pointless exercise.
When Apple adopts some technology, they don't care whether others can do the same, or what problems that will cause to others.
They might use the same medicine.
So if there won't be any consensus, then what? I see no reason to oblige Apple in this case then.
Re:WebGPU Shading Language
by imtringued on Thursday March 12, 2020 @11:25AM
(#22557802)
The motivation is to salvage SPIR-V in a way that makes Apple happy.
Except it wasn't designed to be an "optimal target for SPIR-V" -- it was designed by Apple according to Metal's semantics, to promote Metal over Vulkan, and had to be rejiggered. It's worse, by your standard, than existing, battle-proven GLSL/HLSL toolchains.
But to generate SPIR-V you still need a high level language. So is this useful for it?