On 07.06.2016 18:07, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Juha-Pekka Heikkila
<juhapekka.heikk...@gmail.com> wrote:
Signed-off-by: Juha-Pekka Heikkila <juhapekka.heikk...@gmail.com>
---
src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp | 2 +-
src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_copy_propagation.cpp | 2 +-
src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_dead_code_eliminate.cpp | 4 ++--
3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp
b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp
index 4b29ee5..a04d464 100644
--- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp
+++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp
@@ -2225,7 +2225,7 @@ fs_visitor::assign_constant_locations()
/* As the uniforms are going to be reordered, take the data from a
temporary
* copy of the original param[].
*/
- gl_constant_value **param = ralloc_array(NULL, gl_constant_value*,
+ gl_constant_value **param = rzalloc_array(NULL, gl_constant_value*,
stage_prog_data->nr_params);
memcpy(param, stage_prog_data->param,
sizeof(gl_constant_value*) * stage_prog_data->nr_params);
This immediately overwrites all of param with other data. Are you sure
it's necessary to rzalloc here?
You're correct. I did check it is not needed. Without checking this
could be coming from rebase, oldest pieces on this set is one year old.
diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_copy_propagation.cpp
b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_copy_propagation.cpp
index 438f681..11f8576 100644
--- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_copy_propagation.cpp
+++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_copy_propagation.cpp
@@ -822,7 +822,7 @@ fs_visitor::opt_copy_propagate_local(void *copy_prop_ctx,
bblock_t *block,
int regs_written = effective_width *
type_sz(inst->src[i].type) / REG_SIZE;
if (inst->src[i].file == VGRF) {
- acp_entry *entry = ralloc(copy_prop_ctx, acp_entry);
+ acp_entry *entry = rzalloc(copy_prop_ctx, acp_entry);
Why is this necessary here but not above? For the entry->saturate? I
think it might make sense to just initialize that directly instead of
doing the zeroing.
This is something where I don't know the answer for. I made this set by
switching ralloc to use malloc and go crazy with valgrind reports. I did
think it was enough for now to fix places that break, I mean places that
seemed to need memory to be zeroed to give them the zeroed memory
without worrying why is it so.
I ran piglit and glbenchmark on my IVB. For piglit I went after the
changed tests with valgrind and glbenchmark was just with valgrind all
over.
entry->dst = inst->dst;
entry->dst.reg_offset += offset;
entry->src = inst->src[i];
diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_dead_code_eliminate.cpp
b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_dead_code_eliminate.cpp
index 45f5c5e..9fa259e 100644
--- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_dead_code_eliminate.cpp
+++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_dead_code_eliminate.cpp
@@ -42,8 +42,8 @@ fs_visitor::dead_code_eliminate()
calculate_live_intervals();
int num_vars = live_intervals->num_vars;
- BITSET_WORD *live = ralloc_array(NULL, BITSET_WORD, BITSET_WORDS(num_vars));
- BITSET_WORD *flag_live = ralloc_array(NULL, BITSET_WORD, 1);
+ BITSET_WORD *live = rzalloc_array(NULL, BITSET_WORD,
BITSET_WORDS(num_vars));
+ BITSET_WORD *flag_live = rzalloc_array(NULL, BITSET_WORD, 1);
foreach_block_reverse_safe(block, cfg) {
memcpy(live, live_intervals->block_data[block->num].liveout,
--
1.9.1
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
