On 03/14/2014 11:40 AM, Pohjolainen, Topi wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:48:51PM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
>> Previously, both move_uniform_array_access_to_pull_constants() and
>> setup_pull_constants() maintained stack-local arrays with this
>> information. Storing this information will allow it to be used from
>> multiple functions, allowing us to split and move code around.
>>
>> We'll also eventually want to pass pull constant location information
>> to the SIMD16 compile. Saving this information will help us do that.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the two functions *cannot* share the contents of the
>> array just yet. remove_dead_constants() renumbers all the UNIFORM
>> registers to be contiguous starting at zero, so the two functions
>> talk about uniforms using different names. We can't even remap them,
>> since move_uniform_array_access_to_pull_constants() deletes UNIFORM
>> registers that are only accessed with reladdr, so remove_dead_constants
>> can't even see them.
>>
>> This situation will improve in the next few patches.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org>
>> ---
>> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp | 7 +++++--
>> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.h | 6 ++++++
>> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_visitor.cpp | 1 +
>> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp
>> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp
>> index c24d2f8..8faf401 100644
>> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp
>> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp
>> @@ -1827,7 +1827,7 @@ fs_visitor::remove_dead_constants()
>> void
>> fs_visitor::move_uniform_array_access_to_pull_constants()
>> {
>> - int pull_constant_loc[uniforms];
>> + pull_constant_loc = ralloc_array(mem_ctx, int, uniforms);
>>
>> for (unsigned int i = 0; i < uniforms; i++) {
>> pull_constant_loc[i] = -1;
>> @@ -1884,6 +1884,9 @@
>> fs_visitor::move_uniform_array_access_to_pull_constants()
>> }
>> }
>> invalidate_live_intervals();
>
> I'm confused. I wondered what was the reason for patch number four removing
> this call. But this is not present in current master and the first patch does
> not introduce it either. Leftover from somewhere else, perhaps?Sorry, I sent out a few patches separately, and one of them added this call. I've pushed those to master now. Patch 4 actually just moves the call into demote_pull_constants() - it still happens at the same time.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
