On Sunday, February 01, 2015 01:17:19 PM Eric Anholt wrote: > I'm pretty happy with how it turned out. What I'm not sure on is that > I've got a couple of places where I replicated another transformation, > like fsat(fsat(a)) -> fsat(a) but with a lowered fsat. I could see > potentially having only the canonical form appear in nir_opt_algebraic, > and I'd have two optimization loops in my driver: one in canonical form, > and one in the driver's lowered form, with different > nir_shader_compiler_options in the two loops. I worry a bit, that down > this road lies having at least 3 loops (canonical, then lowered-to-driver > uniform indexing math, then lowered-to-driver operations), and then maybe > I just don't have the creativity right now to see when we're going to need > 4 loops, and this seems nuts. > > (Note: my goal with a bunch of this series is to rely less on my driver's > internal optimization code, since I'm going to have to more or less throw > it out if I go to doing control flow)
Series is: Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org>
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
