On Sep 19, 2015 3:31 PM, "Jason Ekstrand" <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2015 1:29 PM, "Kenneth Graunke" <kenn...@whitecape.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, September 18, 2015 10:55:34 AM Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > > Um, why? I'm sure you have some reason but I don't immediately see
how a
> > > progress flag from lower_vec_to_movs is useful. Some of the others
> > > definitely are.
> > > --Jason
> >
> > Sorry, I should have explained in at least one of the patches.
> >
> > I'm hoping to create an OPT() macro, similar to what we do for i965
> > passes. It would:
> >
> > 1. Run the pass.
> > 2. Call nir_validate_shader() if we actually made any progress.
> > 3. Optionally nir_print_shader() if we made any changes.
> > (i.e. let us do INTEL_DEBUG=optimizer but for NIR passes)
> >
> > I need to know whether a pass made progress in order to decide whether
> > or not to dump the shader. I might want to see the code before and
> > after nir_lower_vec_to_movs().
> >
> > Also, having some passes return 'bool' and some return 'void' is
> > awkward: I can't wrap void-return functions in the same sort of macro.
>
> That makes sense. I think what I'd like to have is a data structure
>
> nir_shader_pass {
> bool (*shader_func)(nir_shader *shader);
> bool (*impl_func)(nir_function_impl *impl);
> nir_metadata preserved;
> };
>
> Then have one of these exported per pass instead of the actual function
or functions. Then we could have a helper function that runs the pass
similar to what the OPT macro would. It could even be smart and, if you
don't provide a shader_func, it runs impl_func on each overload. Does that
seem reasonable?
> --Jason
I forgot to say that this is a good first pass and the series is
Reviewed-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason.ekstr...@intel.com>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
