On 03/11/2013 06:44 AM, Christian König wrote:
Hi everybody,
this problem has been open for quite some time now, with a bunch of different
opinions and sometimes even patches floating on the list.
The solutions proposed or implemented so far all more or less incomplete, so
this approach was designed in mind with both completeness and compatibility
with existing code.
Over all it's just an implementation of what Tom Stellard named solution #4 in
this eMail thread:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2013-January/033264.html
Please review and as usual comments are welcome,
I still don't quite get what's going on here.
In Christoph's reply, it seems he tested your patch and got TGSI code
that looks like this:
DCL IN[0]
DCL IN[1]
DCL IN[2]
DCL OUT[0], POSITION
DCL OUT[1], GENERIC[12]
DCL OUT[2], GENERIC[13]
DCL OUT[3], GENERIC[14]
DCL OUT[4], GENERIC[15]
DCL CONST[0..1]
DCL TEMP[0..3], LOCAL
DCL TEMP[4], LOCAL
DCL ADDR[0]
IMM[0] FLT32 { 0.0000, 0.0000, 0.0000, 0.0000}
0: UARL ADDR[0].x, CONST[1].xxxx
1: MOV TEMP[4], IN[ADDR[0].x] <<< (not the bug) but this is invalid as
there is no IN array, just single ones
2: MOV TEMP[0], IN[0]
3: MOV TEMP[1], IN[1]
4: MOV TEMP[2], IMM[0].xxxx
5: MOV TEMP[3], IMM[0].xxxx
6: UARL ADDR[0].x, CONST[0].xxxx
7: MOV TEMP[1][ADDR[0].x], IN[2]
What exactly does "LOCAL" mean on the temp declarations?
But in Jose's example, he wrote:
DCL TEMP[1][0..70]
DCL TEMP[2][0..7]
MOV OUT[1], TEMP[1][ADDR[0].x]
In this code, each chunk of temporaries has an explicit name as Marek
suggested in his comments to the "#4" proposal.
What exactly is your proposal doing?
Can you please provide some more sample TGSI code to illustrate what
you're doing? And, how it would be extended for inputs/outputs?
Thanks.
-Brian
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
