Adding Curro to the CC since he is reviewing the series.
I think the only patch missing the Rb is the last one, which handles
mixed-float mode validation, Curro is reviewing it and giving feedback
so I think it should be ready before the branch point.
Iago
On Sat, 2019-04-13 at 09:03 -0500,
Jason Ekstrand writes:
> Quick status check. Mesa 19.1 is supposed to branch in two weeks. Are we
> about ready to land this?
>
Seems pretty close to ready to me...
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:13 AM Juan A. Suarez Romero
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2019-03-22 at 17:53 +0100, Iago Toral wrote:
Quick status check. Mesa 19.1 is supposed to branch in two weeks. Are we
about ready to land this?
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:13 AM Juan A. Suarez Romero
wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-03-22 at 17:53 +0100, Iago Toral wrote:
> > Yes, I think those should be fine to land now, they are very few
> >
On Fri, 2019-03-22 at 17:53 +0100, Iago Toral wrote:
> Yes, I think those should be fine to land now, they are very few
> actually. Jason, any objections?
>
Pushed:
- [PATCH v4 10/40] compiler/nir: add lowering option for 16-bit fmod
- [PATCH v4 11/40] compiler/nir: add lowering for 16-bit flrp
On Fri, 2019-03-22 at 13:23 -0500, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 1:13 PM Iago Toral wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-03-22 at 12:47 -0500, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:53 AM Iago Toral
> > > wrote:
> > > > Yes, I think those should be fine to land now, they are
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 1:13 PM Iago Toral wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-03-22 at 12:47 -0500, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:53 AM Iago Toral wrote:
>
> Yes, I think those should be fine to land now, they are very few
> actually. Jason, any objections?
>
>
> None at all. Also,
On Fri, 2019-03-22 at 12:47 -0500, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:53 AM Iago Toral
> wrote:
> > Yes, I think those should be fine to land now, they are very few
> >
> > actually. Jason, any objections?
>
> None at all. Also, where are we at with the last few patches?
Juan
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:53 AM Iago Toral wrote:
> Yes, I think those should be fine to land now, they are very few
> actually. Jason, any objections?
>
None at all. Also, where are we at with the last few patches?
--Jason
> Iago
>
> On Fri, 2019-03-22 at 17:26 +0100, Samuel Pitoiset
Yes, I think those should be fine to land now, they are very few
actually. Jason, any objections?
Iago
On Fri, 2019-03-22 at 17:26 +0100, Samuel Pitoiset wrote:
> Can you eventually merge all NIR patches now? We should be able to
> hook
> up that extension for RADV quite soon.
>
> On 2/12/19
Can you eventually merge all NIR patches now? We should be able to hook
up that extension for RADV quite soon.
On 2/12/19 12:55 PM, Iago Toral Quiroga wrote:
The changes in this version address review feedback to v3. The most significant
changes include:
1. A more generic constant combining
FWIW, the is_partial_write() patch is not strictly required, so I think
it would be okay to not merge it until someone has a bit more time to
think about it if we are not sure that this is the right way to go. We
would lose copy propagation for SIMD8 dispatches, which is not great,
but it is
I believe I've now reviewed everything except some of the validator patches
and the is_partial_write() patch. The validator patches I'm hoping Matt or
Curro can look at. For the is_partial_write() patch, I just need to
convince myself that it doesn't make the compiler significantly more bogus
The changes in this version address review feedback to v3. The most significant
changes include:
1. A more generic constant combining pass that can handle more
constant types (not just F and HF) requested by Jason.
2. The addition of assembly validation for half-float restrictions, and also
for
13 matches
Mail list logo
