Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net> wrote:
>> ---
>> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.h | 3 ++-
>> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_nir.cpp | 11 ++++-------
>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.h
>> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.h
>> index 338c816..ef0256d 100644
>> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.h
>> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.h
>> @@ -319,7 +319,8 @@ public:
>> void nir_emit_alu(const brw::fs_builder &bld, nir_alu_instr *instr);
>> void nir_emit_intrinsic(const brw::fs_builder &bld,
>> nir_intrinsic_instr *instr);
>> - void nir_emit_texture(nir_tex_instr *instr);
>> + void nir_emit_texture(const brw::fs_builder &bld,
>> + nir_tex_instr *instr);
>> void nir_emit_jump(const brw::fs_builder &bld,
>> nir_jump_instr *instr);
>> fs_reg get_nir_src(nir_src src);
>> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_nir.cpp
>> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_nir.cpp
>> index ff5ac9c..61058b2 100644
>> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_nir.cpp
>> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_nir.cpp
>> @@ -444,7 +444,6 @@ void
>> fs_visitor::nir_emit_instr(nir_instr *instr)
>> {
>> const fs_builder abld = bld.annotate(NULL, instr);
>> - this->base_ir = instr;
>
> I'd make this...
>
>>
>> switch (instr->type) {
>> case nir_instr_type_alu:
>> @@ -456,7 +455,7 @@ fs_visitor::nir_emit_instr(nir_instr *instr)
>> break;
>>
>> case nir_instr_type_tex:
>> - nir_emit_texture(nir_instr_as_tex(instr));
>> + nir_emit_texture(abld, nir_instr_as_tex(instr));
>> break;
>>
>> case nir_instr_type_load_const:
>> @@ -472,8 +471,6 @@ fs_visitor::nir_emit_instr(nir_instr *instr)
>> default:
>> unreachable("unknown instruction type");
>> }
>> -
>> - this->base_ir = NULL;
>
> ... and this a separate commit. Otherwise there's an implicit ordering
> to the patches to brw_fs_nir.cpp.There is also a similar ordering dependency between PATCH 31 and the following because of the "abld" local defined in that file. Should I also split that definition into a separate commit? It seems silly to split a one-line change defining a local variable from the first commit that uses it, and a two-line change removing a dead assignment from the commit that makes the assignment dead -- Unless you have some reason to land these patches in a different order?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
