On 29/11/17 22:27, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
On 29.11.2017 12:20, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 29/11/17 21:47, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
On 21.11.2017 04:28, Timothy Arceri wrote:
+ nir_ssa_dest_init(&element_intr->instr, &element_intr->dest,
+ intr->num_components,
intr->dest.ssa.bit_size, NULL);
+
+ if (intr->intrinsic == nir_intrinsic_interp_var_at_offset ||
+ intr->intrinsic == nir_intrinsic_interp_var_at_sample)
+ nir_src_copy(element_intr->src, intr->src,
&element_intr->instr);
&element_int->src[0], &intr->src[0] for clarity, I think.
?
+
+ nir_ssa_def_rewrite_uses(&intr->dest.ssa,
+ nir_src_for_ssa(&element_intr->dest.ssa));
+ } else {
+ nir_intrinsic_set_write_mask(element_intr,
nir_intrinsic_write_mask(intr));
+ element_intr->src[0] = intr->src[0];
I'm still not 100% up on my NIR, but doesn't this also need to be a
nir_src_copy? I think it makes a difference if there's an indirect
access involved.
We don't split indirects so it shouldn't matter here.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but AFAIU this would be for indirects in
the source of a nir_intrinsic_store_var. So, storing to a non-indirect
output variable, but taking a value from an indirect access to e.g. a
temporary array. Those could still exist, right?
(And even if they can't it might be good to use nir_src_copy anyway for
defensive programming.)
Sure makes sense. I'll fix both of these too. Thanks.
Cheers,
Nicolai
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
