On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:50:08 AM Matt Turner wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> > > wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> > >>> > diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp > >>> > b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp > >>> > index af8c087..ea91705 100644 > >>> > --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp > >>> > +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp > >>> > @@ -310,8 +310,8 @@ fs_visitor::VARYING_PULL_CONSTANT_LOAD(const fs_reg > >>> > &dst, > >>> > inst->mlen = 1 + dispatch_width / 8; > >>> > } > >>> > > >>> > - vec4_result.reg_offset += (const_offset & 3) * scale; > >>> > - instructions.push_tail(MOV(dst, vec4_result)); > >>> > + fs_reg result = offset(vec4_result, (const_offset & 3) * scale); > >>> > + instructions.push_tail(MOV(dst, result)); > >>> > >>> Isn't this going to cause us to copy an fs_reg twice, rather than just > >>> setting .reg_offset? > >>> > >>> I'd like to check the generated code. > >> > >> What's your concern there? Just that we're useing more CPU? > > > > Yeah, that we're now potentially copying an fs_reg twice when our > > purpose is just to set a single integer. > > Ignore this feedback for now. You've got a bunch of patches that would > have to be rebased if we changed this and it should be really trivial > to fix it up after the fact.
Have you /seen/ this function? We're returning a blooming exec_list. It's already nuts :) I agree with cleaning it up later. --Ken
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
