On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 11:39 -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Iago Toral
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 12:43 -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Iago Toral
> > > wrote:
> > > > This sounds
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Iago Toral wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 12:43 -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Iago Toral wrote:
>
> This sounds good to me, but I guess it is not really fixing anything,
> right? I ask
On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 12:43 -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Iago Toral
> wrote:
> > This sounds good to me, but I guess it is not really fixing
> > anything,
> >
> > right? I ask because the subject claims that this patch does
> > something
> >
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Iago Toral wrote:
> This sounds good to me, but I guess it is not really fixing anything,
> right? I ask because the subject claims that this patch does something
> that the original code was already supposed to be doing.
>
This patch is a
This sounds good to me, but I guess it is not really fixing anything,
right? I ask because the subject claims that this patch does something
that the original code was already supposed to be doing.
On Wed, 2017-10-25 at 16:25 -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> Before, we bailing in
Before, we bailing in assign_constant_locations based on the minimum
dispatch size. The more direct thing to do is simply to check for
whether or not we have constant locations and bail if we do. For
nir_setup_uniforms, it's completely safe to do it multiple times because
we just copy a value