On 31 October 2011 11:59, Ian Romanick <i...@freedesktop.org> wrote: > On 10/28/2011 02:59 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: > >> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:42:44 -0700, "Ian Romanick"<i...@freedesktop.org> >> wrote: >> >>> From: Ian Romanick<ian.d.romanick@intel.**com <ian.d.roman...@intel.com> >>> > >>> >>> _mesa_ir_link_shader needs to be called before cloning the IR tree so >>> that the var->location field for uniforms is set. >>> >>> WARNING: This change breaks several integer division related piglit >>> tests. The tests break because _mesa_ir_link_shader lowers integer >>> division to an RCP followed by a MUL. The fix is to factor out more >>> of the code from ir_to_mesa so that _mesa_ir_link_shader does not need >>> to be called at all by the i965 driver. This will be the subject of >>> several follow-on patches. >>> >> >> How close are we to avoiding Mesa IR at this point? I'd rather see us >> hack in something to suppress that lowering or something if it's going >> to be very long. >> > > A week or two, tops. Most of the bits that need to be split out are > already split out (and are shared between ir_to_mesa and st_glsl_to_tgsi). > I thought about adding a boolean flag so that ir_to_mesa would skip all > lowering, but I think that would lead to a lot of follow-on failures in > ir_to_mesa. That code rightfully makes a lot of assumptions about how the > IR will look before it does code generation.
Just noticed that this patch series got pushed without resolving the integer division problems. Was that intentional? If so, do we have a new ETA on fixing it? Some of the transform feedback tests I've been working on do a lot of integer math and I'm wondering whether I should avoid integer division for a while. Paul
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
