On 09/26/2017 12:29 PM, Juan A. Suarez Romero wrote:
On Mon, 2017-05-01 at 12:11 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Samuel Pitoiset
<samuel.pitoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 05/01/2017 05:59 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
I think this is off. It shouldn't matter what the code sequence is,
it's all representable. You need to teach replaceZero to not mess
things up for SHLADD's src(1).
It's representable but stupid to do it. We should keep the ADD there and
this also avoids a workaround in the replaceZero logic just for that.
IMHO, this is the better solution.
Yes, that would be a better optimization. However at this stage, you
have a y = SHL(x, 0) + ADD(y, z). I think it makes sense to combine
them into one and let DCE take care of it.
Ideally we wouldn't get into such a situation, but the real issue is
that a perfectly representable (if dumb) instruction like SHLADD(x, 0,
y) gets messed up by replaceZero. We should fix replaceZero. We should
also try to avoid generating such stupid instructions.
So what was the final conclusion for this patch? Was replaceZero fixed?
I don't think it has been fixed, but I could be wrong.
J.A.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
