I forgot to reply here on the list, I've just been talking about this
with Tapani face to face.
My series rebased and fixed on top of mesa master branch from yesterday
Tapani was already taking rebased patches from above branch.
I originally stopped working on this set because I felt there was too
much uncertainty if all places needed to be fixed could be found easily.
Anyway, if you skip my patch for changes in glsl please check you have
all places somehow handled which I had patched. All those patched places
I dug up with Valgrind so they're 'real deal' where will get segfaults.
On 10.10.2016 14:52, Marek Olšák wrote:
I prefer some of my GLSL fixes in 1-4 over JP's changes, because they
seem cleaner to me.
On Oct 10, 2016 1:38 PM, "Tapani Pälli" <tapani.pa...@intel.com
On 10/10/2016 02:27 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Tapani Pälli
<tapani.pa...@intel.com <mailto:tapani.pa...@intel.com>> wrote:
On 10/10/2016 01:38 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Marek Olšák
<mar...@gmail.com <mailto:mar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Tapani Pälli
On 10/08/2016 06:58 PM, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
FYI, we use ralloc for a lot more than just
the glsl compiler so the
first few changes make me a bit nervous.
There was someone working on
making our driver more I
undefined-memory-friendly but I don't know
happened to those patches.
There's bunch of patches like that in this series:
it looks like it just never landed as would have
required more testing
We can land at least some of the patches from that
series. We still
have to replace all non-GLSL uses of
BTW, people can still give Rbs on all patches except 5.
thing isn't an issue and can be dealt with in a separate
can be done after this series lands).
I agree these issues do not block review of the series. We
just need to make
sure it is absolutely safe before landing.
As concrete example I got following segfault when I applied
which is directly related to rzalloc issues. This was with
program, description in bug #94477 has link and build
instructions for this
if you want to try. When I applied JP's patches 4,5,6 (nir,
i965_fs changes) this segfault disappears.
I meant that this series is safe to land without patch 5. Did
it without patch 5?
Ah sorry I managed to miss that. Now I did test and when reverting
patch 5 this test passes fine. Makes sense to do patch 5 as a
separate step when JP's changes land.
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev mailing list