On 10/19/2016 03:53 AM, Iago Toral wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-10-18 at 17:16 -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
>> On 10/11/2016 02:01 AM, Iago Toral Quiroga wrote:
>>> @@ -811,7 +811,7 @@
>>> vec4_visitor::nir_emit_intrinsic(nir_intrinsic_instr *instr)
>>> if (const_offset) {
>>> offset = brw_imm_ud(const_offset->u32[0] & ~15);
>>> } else {
>>> - offset = get_nir_src(instr->src[1], nir_type_int, 1);
>>> + offset = get_nir_src(instr->src[1], nir_type_uint32, 1);
>> Does it matter that this changed form int to uint32?
>
> At some point in the past we made brw_type_for_nir_type() only accept
> bit-sized alu types, so this patch was necessary for things to work.
> That's not the case now so this patch should not be necessary anymore
> (a quick run of the fp64 tests shows no regressions without this
> patch). I guess it does not hurt to add the bit-size information when
> it is known though, but I think it is safe to drop this if you think it
> is not worth it.
Uh... I was just wondering why the sized version is nir_type_uint32
instead of nir_type_int32 as I would have expected.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
