Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:06 AM, Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net> > wrote: >> Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez <sigles...@igalia.com> writes: >> >>> On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 13:50 -0700, Matt Turner wrote: >>>> SEL can only convert between a few integer types, which we basically >>>> never do. >>>> >>>> Fixes fs/vs-double-uniform-array-direct-indirect-non-uniform-control- >>>> flow >>>> Cc: mesa-sta...@lists.freedesktop.org >>> >>> I sent a similar but wrong patch (taking only into account the type >>> size) some time ago, but after discussing it with Curro, the solution >>> was to fix it inside d2x pass. This is what this patch "i965/fs: >>> generalize the legalization d2x pass" does. >>> >>> I am still working on improving that patch but I expect to have >>> something soon. If you prefer to land this now, please add my R-b but >>> you probably want to discuss it with Curro before: >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez <sigles...@igalia.com> >>> >> >> Samuel's d2x patch has the advantage that it will allow the SEL peephole >> to replace control flow with SEL instructions even where there is a type >> conversion. That said this patch shouldn't hurt in mesa-stable in the >> meantime if we remember to revert it in master when Samuel's patch >> lands. Patch is: >> >> Acked-by: Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net> > > Oh, I didn't realize that pass was going to handle instructions not > operating on DF types. That's surprising given its name.
Yeah, he's also sent a patch to rename it. > > To confirm: with that pass in place it should be save to do a > type-converting SEL (on, say, integer sources and a float destination) > in the IR? > Yes, in principle it should be safe for the optimizer to introduce type conversions of any kind, although at this point the lower_conversions pass only handles MOV, MOV_INDIRECT and SEL opcodes it should be straightforward to extend it to handle the type conversion restrictions of any instruction. > If that's the case, I'll delay committing this patch until lower_d2x > is committed, so that we don't have to remember to revert my patch, > and there's no chance of bugs being fixed on the stable branch but not > in master. I guess if you commit it to master already there's no chance of it not getting fixed in master, the only concern is that we'll end up with both fixes checked in forever. Samuel, would you mind including a revert of this change as PATCH 7.5 of your FP64 series?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
