On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: > > On Oct 28, 2014 11:57 AM, "Matt Turner" <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> >> wrote: >> > Before, we used the a signed d-word for booleans and the immedates we >> > emitted varried between signed and unsigned. This commit changes the >> > type >> > to unsigned (I think that makes more sense) and makes immediates more >> > consistent. This allows copy propagation to work better cleans up some >> > instructions. >> > >> > total instructions in shared programs: 5473519 -> 5465864 (-0.14%) >> > instructions in affected programs: 432849 -> 425194 (-1.77%) >> > GAINED: 27 >> > LOST: 0 >> >> I assumed at first that this was on Haswell, but it couldn't be >> because Haswell doesn't use 0/1 for boolean. What platform was this? > > It doesn't matter what form of booleans the arch uses. I believe it was on > HSW.
It's unclear to me how you're coming to that conclusion. None of the hunks in brw_fs_visitor.cpp affect platforms where Const.UniformBooleanTrue != 1. I suppose the meaningful change in this patch for those platforms is the one in brw_shader.cpp. > However, as I have mentioned in private, I've had trouble running > shaderdb and believing the results. They could be bogus but I don't think > so. Also unclear to me how you could not when I just tested it myself. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
