If we have a register that needs spilling in an if/else block, there is a chance
that we may not need to spill if we do[n't] take the branch.
The downside of this patch is the case where the register being spilled ends up
in both if/else blocks. For that case, preferring this path will increase code
size with no possible performance benefit.
Same patch for FS coming up.
Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net>
---
src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_reg_allocate.cpp | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_reg_allocate.cpp
b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_reg_allocate.cpp
index b9db908..b345f27 100644
--- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_reg_allocate.cpp
+++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_reg_allocate.cpp
@@ -309,10 +309,12 @@ vec4_visitor::evaluate_spill_costs(float *spill_costs,
bool *no_spill)
switch (inst->opcode) {
+ case BRW_OPCODE_ENDIF:
case BRW_OPCODE_DO:
loop_scale *= 10;
break;
+ case BRW_OPCODE_IF:
case BRW_OPCODE_WHILE:
loop_scale /= 10;
break;
--
2.4.4
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
