Am 11.10.2015 um 03:29 schrieb Marek Olšák:
> From: Marek Olšák <marek.ol...@amd.com>
>
> This is useful only when emit functions use it.
> The new radeonsi min/max opcode implementation requires this.
> ---
> src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi.c
> b/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi.c
> index c4ae304..c50d83e 100644
> --- a/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi.c
> +++ b/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi.c
> @@ -114,12 +114,17 @@ lp_build_emit_llvm(
> struct lp_build_emit_data * emit_data)
> {
> struct lp_build_tgsi_action * action = &bld_base->op_actions[tgsi_opcode];
> + const struct tgsi_opcode_info *old_info = emit_data->info;
> /* XXX: Assert that this is a componentwise or replicate instruction */
>
> lp_build_action_set_dst_type(emit_data, bld_base, tgsi_opcode);
> emit_data->chan = 0;
> +
> + /* Set and restore the opcode info. */
> + emit_data->info = tgsi_get_opcode_info(tgsi_opcode);
> assert(action->emit);
> action->emit(action, bld_base, emit_data);
> + emit_data->info = old_info;
> return emit_data->output[0];
> }
>
>
Could you elaborate why this is necessary? Looks like a hack and I can't
see why opcode info would be wrong in the first place. Or if that's
never set correctly and you just need it to be able to distinguish
min/max later, I'd suggest you shouldn't do that and just use different
functions.
Roland
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
