On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 16:12 +0100, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 03:35:44PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > On Son, 2013-02-10 at 19:38 +0100, Vincent Lejeune wrote: > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/Target/R600/SIInstructions.td > > > b/lib/Target/R600/SIInstructions.td > > > index a09f243..7e50e86 100644 > > > --- a/lib/Target/R600/SIInstructions.td > > > +++ b/lib/Target/R600/SIInstructions.td > > > @@ -1423,8 +1423,8 @@ def : Pat < > > > /********** VOP3 Patterns **********/ > > > /********** ================== **********/ > > > > > > -def : Pat <(f32 (IL_mad AllReg_32:$src0, VReg_32:$src1, VReg_32:$src2)), > > > - (V_MAD_LEGACY_F32 AllReg_32:$src0, VReg_32:$src1, > > > VReg_32:$src2, > > > +def : Pat <(f32 (fadd (fmul AllReg_32:$src0, VReg_32:$src1), > > > VReg_32:$src2)), > > > + (V_MAD_F32 AllReg_32:$src0, VReg_32:$src1, VReg_32:$src2, > > > 0, 0, 0, 0)>; > > > > I still feel a bit uneasy about applying the SI changes without fully > > understanding why they break those piglit tests. Though I guess it might > > be okay if you're not targetting this for the Mesa stable branch... > > Tom / Christian, what's your opinion on this? > > > > I think this should go to the stable branch, because V_MAD_LEGACY is the wrong > instruction to use in the case, [...]
It might not be wrong for IL_mad. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
