zlacker

[return to "Building the DirectX shader compiler better than Microsoft?"]
1. mcraih+c7[view] [source] 2024-02-10 11:02:34
>>emidoo+(OP)
This is also related to Godot "The reason to make it optional is that Direct3D 12 support currently relies on the proprietary dxil.dll library from the DirectX Shader Compiler being shipped together with Godot, and shipping proprietary software goes against the mission of the Godot project." https://godotengine.org/article/dev-snapshot-godot-4-3-dev-3...
◧◩
2. yazzku+zw1[view] [source] 2024-02-10 22:05:33
>>mcraih+c7
Which part of dxil/dxc is proprietary exactly? Trying to make sense of the license barf at https://github.com/microsoft/DirectXShaderCompiler
◧◩◪
3. zerocr+gz1[view] [source] 2024-02-10 22:31:55
>>yazzku+zw1
The license (and the code) for dxil.dll/libdxil.so isn't in that repo, they just include the blob in releases. If you look at a release you'll see an additional LICENSE-MS.txt that just covers that dxil signing library.
◧◩◪◨
4. nextac+FS1[view] [source] 2024-02-11 02:01:36
>>zerocr+gz1
On the latest release https://github.com/microsoft/DirectXShaderCompiler/releases/...

There are "source code" files in zip and tar.gz

Aren't those source code for those dlls?

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. nhubba+Ga4[view] [source] 2024-02-12 02:46:47
>>nextac+FS1
No, that’s a GitHub thing — it just downloads the Git repo at that release tag, which doesn’t include the source code in this case
[go to top]