On Don, 2013-02-14 at 11:32 +0100, Christian König wrote: > Am 13.02.2013 18:22, schrieb Michel Dänzer: > > On Mit, 2013-02-13 at 18:17 +0100, Christian König wrote: > >> Am 13.02.2013 18:11, schrieb Michel Dänzer: > >>> On Mit, 2013-02-13 at 11:34 -0500, Tom Stellard wrote: > >>>> There's just the one cleanup on patch 10 that you mentioned, but > >>>> otherwise the series looks good to me. Should we mark all these patches > >>>> as candidates for the stable branch? > >>> I think so, at least the parts which prevent things such as Vincent's > >>> MAD changes or switching to the Source scheduler from breaking stuff. > >> I still have no idea why the MAD change actually breaks anything. I'm > >> working on OMOD/ABS/NEG folding in another branch and have Vincents MAD > >> in there, but I haven't had time to fully figure out what's wrong there. > >> And unfortunately I don't think I will have time in the near future. > > Well, as I said, his MAD changes no longer break after this series. Does > > anything speak against backporting the whole series to the stable tree? > > Oh, didn't know that I actually had fixed the bug that made MAD break, > good to know.
Actually, today I'm seeing the MAD changes breaking some piglit tests again even with your changes. Not sure why that didn't seem the case last week, maybe these tests aren't always producing stable results yet. Looking at the differences in the generated code e.g. for fs-temp-array-mat2-index-col-row-wr might give you an idea what could be up. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
