On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net> wrote:
> ---
> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_cse.cpp | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_cse.cpp
> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_cse.cpp
> index 3ddd17c..822a6a3 100644
> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_cse.cpp
> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_cse.cpp
> @@ -206,9 +206,10 @@ create_copy_instr(fs_visitor *v, fs_inst *inst, fs_reg
> src, bool negate)
> copy = v->LOAD_PAYLOAD(inst->dst, payload, sources, header_size);
> } else {
> copy = v->MOV(inst->dst, src);
> - copy->force_writemask_all = inst->force_writemask_all;
> copy->src[0].negate = negate;
> }
> + copy->force_writemask_all = inst->force_writemask_all;
> + copy->force_sechalf = inst->force_sechalf;
I thought we resolved not to allow force_writemask_all/force_sechalf
on load_payload instructions?
I see in lower_load_payload that we often do
mov->force_writemask_all = inst->force_writemask_all;
where inst is the load_payload, as if its force_writemask_all might be
set, but I don't see any places where we're setting it. I also don't
see any uses of force_sechalf with load_payload. Will
lower_load_payload do the "right thing" with these set? What is the
"right thing"?
We've clearly got a bug in that we're dropping force_sechalf on the
MOV, but what problem are you fixing with the LOAD_PAYLOAD? Presumably
something later will emit a texture or an atomic with force_sechalf
and if we drop force_sechalf during CSE we'll break something? That's
the kind of thing the commit message needs to say.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
