On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 09:28 -0800, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 08:51 -0800, José Fonseca wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 08:22 -0800, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 08:19 -0800, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 08:04 -0800, José Fonseca wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 05:39 -0800, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 15:27 -0800, Marek Olšák wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +static INLINE
> > > > > > > +void util_blitter_save_fragment_sampler_states(
> > > > > > > + struct blitter_context *blitter,
> > > > > > > + int num_sampler_states,
> > > > > > > + void **sampler_states)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > + assert(num_textures <= 32);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + blitter->saved_num_sampler_states = num_sampler_states;
> > > > > > > + memcpy(blitter->saved_sampler_states, sampler_states,
> > > > > > > + num_sampler_states * sizeof(void *));
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have you tried compiling with debug enabled? The assert above
> > > > > > fails to
> > > > > > compile. Also, can you use Elements() or similar instead of the
> > > > > > hard-coded 32?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe we can figure out how to go back to having asserts keep
> > > > > > exposing
> > > > > > their contents to the compiler even on non-debug builds. This used
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > work without problem on linux and helped a lot to avoid these type
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > problems.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wouldn't say without a problem: defining assert(expr) as (void)0
> > > > > instead of (void)(expr) on release builds yielded a non-negligible
> > > > > performance improvement. I don't recall the exact figure, but I
> > > > > believe
> > > > > it was the 3-5% for the driver I was benchmarking at the time. YMMV.
> > > > > Different drivers will give different results, but there's nothing
> > > > > platform specific about this.
> > > >
> > > > It's not hard to avoid excuting code... For instance we could always
> > > > have it translated to something like:
> > > >
> > > > if (0) {
> > > > (void)(expr);
> > > > }
> > > > (void)(0)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Obviously I would have meant to say something cleaner like:
> > >
> > > do {
> > > if (0) { (void)(expr); }
> > > }
> > > while (0)
> >
> > This only works if expr has no calls, or just inline calls. Using my
> > earlier example, if very_expensive_check() is in another file then the
> > compiler has to assume the function will have side effects, and the call
> > can't be removed.
>
> What call?!?
>
> if (0) do_something_with_side_effects();
>
> Has no side effects.
Nevermind. Don't know what I was thinking.
Jose
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return on Information:
Google Enterprise Search pays you back
Get the facts.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Mesa3d-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mesa3d-dev
