Hi, Given the fixes you already made based on my comments. Patches 1-20, 22-27, 29-43, and 61 (multiview!) are
Reviewed-by: Caio Marcelo de Oliveira Filho <[email protected]> Patches 46-47 and 49 seem to be valid regardless the rest of the code, so I'd consider getting them in independently. They are also R-b'ed. I've skipped 21 and 28 because I wanted to give a deeper look at the originals. From the perspective of someone that is living with deref_vars for just a short time, I like the idea of removing one special construction (derefs) and rely on instructions instead. Which made me wonder: was there a special factor that led NIR to start with the "old-school derefs" in the first place? Other day Curro asked about one of the "selling points" of NIR being it did not have all those nodes representing dereferences. I digged up an old comment to what I think he was referring to https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2014-February/053477.html - All the ir_dereference chains blow up the memory usage, and the constant pointer chasing in the recursive algorithms needed to handle them is not just cache-unfriendly but "cache-mean." How does deref_instructions avoid being "cache-mean" as their "predecessors"? Was the blow up more a result of how the instructions were structured than the fact it had those dereferences nodes? Thanks, Caio _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
