On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. >> > > Not true. The real problem we were hitting was when we emitted a value > from an ir_constant. In this case, we emitted it as a copy from unsigned > to signed regardless of your platform. That was what was causing us extra > instructions. Most of the other changes are purely cosmetic because I > decided to unify on UD rather than D. > > >> 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. >> > > Re-running shader-db myself... > Ok, Now I'm seeing what you're seeing (go figure). I wonder if something broke... --Jason
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
