Iago Toral <ito...@igalia.com> writes: > On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 09:54 +0200, Pohjolainen, Topi wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 10:48:49AM +0100, Samuel Iglesias Gons?lvez wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > There is only one patch from this series that has been reviewed (patch >> > 1). >> > >> > Our plans is to start sending patches for adding fp64 support to i965 >> > driver in the coming weeks but they depend on these patches. >> > >> > Can someone take a look at them? ;) >> > >> > Sam >> > >> > >> > On Thu, 2015-12-17 at 14:44 +0100, Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez wrote: >> > > Hello, >> > > >> > > This patch series is a updated version of the one Iago sent last >> > > week [0] that includes patches for gen6 too, as suggested by Jason. >> > > >> > > We checked the gen9 code paths that work with a horizontal width of 4 >> > > and we think there won't be any regression on gen9... but we don't >> > > have any gen9 machine to run piglit with these patches. Can someone >> > > check it? >> >> I rebased it and ran it through the test system, gen9 seems to be fine, I >> only got one regression, and that was on old g965: >> >> /tmp/build_root/m64/lib/piglit/bin/ext_framebuffer_multisample-accuracy >> all_samples srgb depthstencil -auto -fbo >> Pixels that should be unlit >> count = 236444 >> RMS error = 0.025355 >> Pixels that should be totally lit >> count = 13308 >> Perfect output >> The error threshold for unlit and totally lit pixels test is 0.016650 >> Pixels that should be partially lit >> count = 12392 >> RMS error = 0.273876 >> The error threshold for partially lit pixels is 0.333000 >> Samples = 0, Result = fail > > I managed to borrow gen4 hardware to test this. According to glxinfo: > Mesa DRI Mobile Intel GM45 Express Chipset > > but it does not fail for me... never. I left this test running in a loop > for 5 minutes and it never failed. Also, looking at the problem > described in the output you pasted above, it seems that the problem was > related to precision calculations and it looks rather odd that our > execsize patches could've compromised the precision of anything... > > Mark, would it be possible for you or someone else to run the piglit > test mentioned by Topi above on gen4 hardware against this Mesa branch?: > https://github.com/Igalia/mesa/tree/i965-fix-execsize
I ran this branch through our CI, and it passed all tests. My recollection is that ext_framebuffer_multisample-accuracy occasionally fails on g965. I would not attribute any failure of that test to this branch. > BTW, I also tried to run this inside a larger piglit run (all.py with -t > framebuffer selects 910 tests, just in case the result could be alatered > by parallel runs) and same result, it always passes fine. > > Iago _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
