On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Connor Abbott <cwabbo...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > I agree with Ken that the regressions are small enough, and it seems >> > they're mostly stuff we can prevent by being smarter when doing the >> > sel peephole, so it seems like the cleanup that will probably help >> > other passes is worth it. >> >> So, usually we do that as a preparatory patch. Why aren't we doing that >> here? > > > Do what in a preparatory patch? Fix up the sel peephole to be able to > handle "if (foo) bar = baz;"? Sure, I can put that patch together.
I thought that this would get turned into a conditional select as a side-effect of going out of SSA anyway (assuming baz was unconditionally set before the if)? Are these shaders not setting baz unconditionally? >> >> NIR instruction counts is not the metric we care about. > > > No, but cleaning things up means that we can do other optimizations better. > Also, in each of those cases, the non-ssa NIR code was better it was just > less cleanable by the backend. We need to work on that, but I don't think > it's an indicator of a problem. > --Jason Okay, that seems fine. I wouldn't bother updating the SEL peephole. It sounds like a number of the regressions we have are related to it not handling something so we might need to do a larger evaluation. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
