On 07/28/2016 07:52 AM, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 6 June 2016 at 00:02, Vedran Miletić <ved...@miletic.net> wrote:
>>> On 06/04/2016 04:18 AM, Francisco Jerez wrote:
>>>> Serge Martin <edb+m...@sigluy.net> writes:
>>>>> From: Vedran Miletić <ved...@miletic.net>
>>>>> Make sure that a struct argument did not get compiled into a pointer
>>>>> type with the byval attribute. If we try to handle the pointer with
>>>>> byval, we end up with the pointer size instead of the struct size.
>>>> Ugh, is that a bug in the code below?  How are byval pointers supposed
>>>> to be handled here?  Exactly as if the argument wasn't a pointer at all
>>>> by providing a copy of the pointed-to object as-is in the kernel input
>>>> buffer?  In that case wouldn't the code below need to pass the correct
>>>> size of the pointed-to object as target/api size rather than the size of
>>>> the pointer?
>>> Yes, byval+pointer should be handled as there is no pointer at all.
>>> I have tried passing the correct size, but IIRC LLVM AMDGPU backend does not
>>> generate correct asm for byval+pointer variant. The simple solution is to
>>> fail with an assert here unless Clang generates code both Clover and the
>>> backend can handle.
>> Gents, can anyone confirm if the series is still applicable for master
>> or it's been superseded ?
> Hi Emil, I don't think PATCH 1 is useful, but v1.1 of PATCH 2 still
> makes sense.  It looks like it's going to need some minor rework though
> for it to apply cleanly on master.
>> Thanks
>> Emil

Hi Emil, Francisco, Serge,

now that PATCH 1 is merged, can we also merge PATCH 2?


Vedran Miletić
mesa-dev mailing list

Reply via email to