zlacker

[return to "Building the DirectX shader compiler better than Microsoft?"]
1. delta_+7p[view] [source] 2024-02-10 14:29:11
>>emidoo+(OP)
> However, it doesn’t require any additional .dlls to be shipped with the application.

Many video games already do this with all the proprietary middleware they use (Bink, SpeedTree, PhysX, etc). Most launchers (Steam, GOG, Epic, etc) also require their respective .DLLs. Many games also use D3D11On12. Many shipping games in my list have dxil.dll amongst their installed files.

Therefore, an honest question: what's the problem with shipping an additional DLL? The work done here to reverse-engineer and re-implement the code-signing is fantastic—especially the fact that it is bitwise equal to dxil.dll's output. But I am ridiculously lazy and prefer to take the easier way out, and would've just shipped the DLL.

◧◩
2. chris3+rx[view] [source] 2024-02-10 15:36:38
>>delta_+7p
This opensource implementation can be included in existing game engines without requiring the programmer to know or understand what dxil.dll even is. The Mach engine, for instance, can use this to create a compiler that compiles zig code into shaders across all its targeted platforms in a way that doesn't require any additional setup or dependencies for the end user, it's just built into Mach's core.
[go to top]