On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> During initial CCS bring-up, I discovered that you have to do a full CS
> stall prior to doing a CCS resolve as well as afterwards. It appears
> that the same is needed for fast-clears as well. This fixes rendering
>
On 10 March 2017 at 13:36, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 12:11 +, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 9 March 2017 at 14:39, Steven Newbury
>> wrote:
>> > Introduction of zlib compression for the shader cache means
>> > zlib needs to be
2017-03-08 17:44 GMT+01:00 Emil Velikov :
> On 5 March 2017 at 21:23, Mauro Rossi wrote:
> > Adding libmesa_amd_common dependency and exporting its headers,
> > avoids the following building error:
> >
> >
On Sat, 2017-03-11 at 23:24 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
>
> On 10/03/17 18:53, Andres Gomez wrote:
> >
> > According with that text it would be OK to report a different number
> > than 0 when asking for the active UBOs to the failed link program but
> > it still will be not OK that, when trying
This reduces the size of the aubinator binary from ~1.4Mb to ~700Kb.
With can now drop the checks on xxd in configure.
v2: Fix incorrect makefile dependency (Lionel)
v3: use $(PYTHON2) (Emil)
Signed-off-by: Lionel Landwerlin
---
configure.ac | 1
v2 (from Dylan):
Add main function
Add missing Copyright
Use print_function
v3: Add actual license (Dylan)
Signed-off-by: Lionel Landwerlin
Reviewed-by: Dylan Baker
---
src/intel/Makefile.genxml.am| 1 +
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100151
--- Comment #5 from Anton Starikov ---
I can confirm that I experience the same bug on Centos-7 with mesa 11.2
I tried to compile and run with 17.0.1 (confirmed by glxinfo), the same result.
GALLIUM_DRIVER=softpipe and
You know, you could use "gzip | xxd"
But I think 10 lines of python code is probably fine. :)
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Lionel Landwerlin <
lionel.g.landwer...@intel.com> wrote:
> v2 (from Dylan):
>Add main function
>Add missing Copyright
>Use print_function
>
> v3:
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 10 March 2017 at 13:36, Steven Newbury wrote:
>> On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 12:11 +, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>> On 9 March 2017 at 14:39, Steven Newbury
>>> wrote:
>>> >
On 12/03/17 00:29, Andres Gomez wrote:
On Sat, 2017-03-11 at 23:24 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 10/03/17 18:53, Andres Gomez wrote:
According with that text it would be OK to report a different number
than 0 when asking for the active UBOs to the failed link program but
it still will be
Ian,
Thank you for responding! My objective with sending the first e-mail
wasn't to say "NIR or nothing" but to get some healthy debate going and
ensure that all options were explored and evaluated. Softfp64 is going to
be a lot of code and I want to make sure we're happy with it before we land
On 10 March 2017 at 10:51, Grazvydas Ignotas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:23 AM, Timothy Arceri wrote:
>> On 07/03/17 12:25, Alan Swanson wrote:
>>>
>>> Still using random selection of two-character subdirectory in which
>>> to check cache files
On Sat, 2017-03-11 at 17:08 +, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 10 March 2017 at 10:51, Grazvydas Ignotas
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:23 AM, Timothy Arceri > com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 07/03/17 12:25, Alan Swanson wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> >
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Jason Ekstrand
wrote:
>
>
> As I said at the top, I'm really not going for NIR or nothing. I agree
> that GLSL has advantages for chips like r600 which badly needs emulation
> and isn't moving to NIR any time soon. Also, fp64 isn't a
Signed-off-by: Boyan Ding
---
src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/nouveau_screen.c | 29
src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/nouveau_screen.h | 3 +++
2 files changed, 32 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/nouveau_screen.c
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Grazvydas Ignotas
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Jason Ekstrand
> wrote:
> > During initial CCS bring-up, I discovered that you have to do a full CS
> > stall prior to doing a CCS resolve as well as afterwards.
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100151
--- Comment #6 from Anton Starikov ---
BTW, patch from Bug 99116 doesn't help either.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100073
--- Comment #31 from oia...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Emil Velikov from comment #28)
> Peter Dolding [seems like you like posting huge emails everywhere],
> attempting to summarise:
>
> Debian's interpretation of "reproducible" is - _all_ the
On 12/03/17 11:34, Marek Olšák wrote:
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 1:31 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 10/03/17 23:01, Marek Olšák wrote:
I'm seeing patches I've already reviewed in the previous
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100073
oia...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |FIXED
--- Comment #33 from
On 10/03/17 21:44, Mike Lothian wrote:
This isn't applying cleanly for me, I think I'm missing some patches
I've applied Series 20989, 20872, 20873 (rev1 with patches 6,7 applied
manually - patchwork was being weird) on top of master
Do you have a branch somewhere?
Almost everything but
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99467
--- Comment #19 from Sebastian Jug ---
I would like to see these patches go mainline as well so we can all play.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 1:31 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Timothy Arceri
> wrote:
>> On 10/03/17 23:01, Marek Olšák wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm seeing patches I've already reviewed in the previous extended
>>> series (e.g. 1/8) and
On Sun, 2017-03-12 at 10:07 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
>
> On 12/03/17 00:29, Andres Gomez wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-03-11 at 23:24 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> > >
> > > On 10/03/17 18:53, Andres Gomez wrote:
> > > >
> > > > According with that text it would be OK to report a different
I was talking to Daniel today and I think we also need another some sort of
GL or GBM api that gives you the modifiers supported for
rendering/texturing. One option would be a gbm_get_modifiers_for_use()
entrypoint that takes a usage and gives you a set of modifiers that's
guaranteed to work for
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100073
--- Comment #30 from Tobias Droste ---
(In reply to oiaohm from comment #29)
> I would still prefer each arch has there own cache directory in case one of
> the archs has a suspect gcc or other complier and has in fact built the
On 10/03/17 21:51, Marek Olšák wrote:
BTW I don't think that supporting GL compat contexts is worth it.
I'm happy to drop all the compat patches from this series. On the other
hand they are already done and since we are going to be white listing
maybe its won't hurt to leave it in?
Marek
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> On 10/03/17 23:01, Marek Olšák wrote:
>>
>> I'm seeing patches I've already reviewed in the previous extended
>> series (e.g. 1/8) and later ones show up multiple times (e.g. there
>> are two patches for 5/8), so I
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100073
--- Comment #29 from oia...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Tobias Droste from comment #27)
> They are build from the same source code version so it's perfectly fine for
> them to have the same timestamp.
>
> In fact, this actually helps and would
On 12/03/17 12:17, Andres Gomez wrote:
On Sun, 2017-03-12 at 10:07 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 12/03/17 00:29, Andres Gomez wrote:
On Sat, 2017-03-11 at 23:24 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 10/03/17 18:53, Andres Gomez wrote:
According with that text it would be OK to report a
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100073
Timothy Arceri changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|RESOLVED
On 10/03/17 23:01, Marek Olšák wrote:
I'm seeing patches I've already reviewed in the previous extended
series (e.g. 1/8) and later ones show up multiple times (e.g. there
are two patches for 5/8), so I don't know what to review. Can you send
the whole thing again. Thanks.
I accidentally sent
On 10/03/17 22:53, Marek Olšák wrote:
For the series:
Acked-by: Marek Olšák
Thanks :)
Does this fix the crash when GLSL gets a cache hit and st/mesa gets a
cache miss?
There is no crash that I'm aware of. If you mean does the fallback path
stop such a crash
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100091
--- Comment #25 from Timothy Arceri ---
After a bunch of discussion it's been decided to move all cache entries to a
single cache dir and instead use the timestamp (in future maybe build-id hash)
and gpu id as part of the
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100091
--- Comment #23 from Michel Dänzer ---
(In reply to Emil Velikov from comment #19)
> IMHO the [file] source of the timestamps is not the bigger mystery, but why
> we end up with "no such file or directory...---disabling".
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100091
--- Comment #22 from John ---
In case it helps, here are the calls for disk_cache_create (always called by
r600_disk_cache_create).
First when starting the Battle.Net launcher:
- Called for radeonsi_dri.so
- Called for
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100073
--- Comment #27 from Tobias Droste ---
They are build from the same source code version so it's perfectly fine for
them to have the same timestamp.
In fact, this actually helps and would make it unnecessary to have separate
On 10/03/17 18:53, Andres Gomez wrote:
On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 14:28 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 10/03/17 08:46, Andres Gomez wrote:
On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 08:32 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 23/02/17 19:55, Andres Gomez wrote:
Commit f1293b2f9bc3 split apart buffer block arrays but
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100073
--- Comment #28 from Emil Velikov ---
Peter Dolding [seems like you like posting huge emails everywhere], attempting
to summarise:
Debian's interpretation of "reproducible" is - _all_ the binaries across _any_
arch
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100091
--- Comment #24 from Emil Velikov ---
(In reply to Michel Dänzer from comment #23)
> (In reply to Emil Velikov from comment #19)
> > IMHO the [file] source of the timestamps is not the bigger mystery, but why
> > we
40 matches
Mail list logo