On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net>
> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason.ekstr...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_dead_code_eliminate.cpp | 10 +++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_dead_code_eliminate.cpp
> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_dead_code_eliminate.cpp
> > index 697b44a..036875f 100644
> > --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_dead_code_eliminate.cpp
> > +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_dead_code_eliminate.cpp
> > @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ fs_visitor::dead_code_eliminate()
> > int var = live_intervals->var_from_reg(&inst->dst);
> > result_live = BITSET_TEST(live, var);
> > } else {
> > - int var = live_intervals->var_from_vgrf[inst->dst.reg];
> > + int var = live_intervals->var_from_reg(&inst->dst);
> > for (int i = 0; i < inst->regs_written; i++) {
> > result_live = result_live || BITSET_TEST(live, var +
> i);
>
> This is wrong, isn't it? Before we get the base var and iterate 0
> through regs_written. After we're getting the var of the
> register+offset and then iterating.
>
No, in fact this hunk is what prompted me to make the change. If we write
to vgrf3+2.0, then the previous version would tacitly assume that the
offset is 0 and treat it as if we were writing to vgrf3+0.0.
>
> > }
> > @@ -78,19 +78,19 @@ fs_visitor::dead_code_eliminate()
> >
> > if (inst->dst.file == GRF) {
> > if (!inst->is_partial_write()) {
> > - int var = live_intervals->var_from_vgrf[inst->dst.reg];
> > + int var = live_intervals->var_from_reg(&inst->dst);
> > for (int i = 0; i < inst->regs_written; i++) {
> > - BITSET_CLEAR(live, var + inst->dst.reg_offset + i);
> > + BITSET_CLEAR(live, var + i);
> > }
>
> This hunk seems fine.
>
> > }
> > }
> >
> > for (int i = 0; i < inst->sources; i++) {
> > if (inst->src[i].file == GRF) {
> > - int var =
> live_intervals->var_from_vgrf[inst->src[i].reg];
> > + int var = live_intervals->var_from_reg(&inst->src[i]);
> >
> > for (int j = 0; j < inst->regs_read(this, i); j++) {
> > - BITSET_SET(live, var + inst->src[i].reg_offset + j);
> > + BITSET_SET(live, var + j);
>
> I think this is also fine.
>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
