On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Oded Gabbay <oded.gab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On 17 November 2015 at 16:02, Oded Gabbay <oded.gab...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This patch makes sure that if we use altivec (VMX) instructions, we > don't > >> use VSX instructions as well, as this cause piglit tests to fail > >> > >> For more details, see: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=25503#c7 > >> > >> With this patch, ppc64le reaches parity with x86-64 as far as piglit > test > >> suite is concerned. > >> > >> v2: > >> - Added check that we have at least LLVM 3.4 > >> - Added the LLVM bug URL as a comment in the code > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Oded Gabbay <oded.gab...@gmail.com> > >> Cc: "11.0" <mesa-sta...@lists.freedesktop.org> > >> --- > >> src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_misc.cpp | 4 ++++ > >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_misc.cpp > b/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_misc.cpp > >> index 7bda118..152593a 100644 > >> --- a/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_misc.cpp > >> +++ b/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_misc.cpp > >> @@ -536,6 +536,10 @@ > lp_build_create_jit_compiler_for_module(LLVMExecutionEngineRef *OutJIT, > >> > >> #if defined(PIPE_ARCH_PPC) > >> MAttrs.push_back(util_cpu_caps.has_altivec ? "+altivec" : > "-altivec"); > >> +#if HAVE_LLVM >= 0x0304 > >> + /* See LLVM bug https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=25503#c7 */ > >> + MAttrs.push_back("-vsx"); > > The commit message does not reflect what the patch actually does. I > > cannot object against the patch in any way, although the two should be > > in sync imho. > > > > Base of a very quick look at the llvm bug, I'm leaning that the commit > > msg is correct and the patch is off ? > > > > Thanks > > Emil > > Hmm, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. > > The commit message says: "This patch makes sure that if we use altivec > (VMX) instructions, we don't > use VSX instructions as well, as this cause piglit tests to fail" > > And the patch itself disables the VSX attribute in LLVM backend in > case we use Altivec (VMX) - meaning that no VSX instructions will be > generated alongside Altivec instructions. > > So unless I completely misunderstood something, the commit message and > the patch match. > sorry to meddle. the commit message suggests that you only want to disable vsx if altivec is enabled. However, the patch adds -vsx unconditionally. Do you want to ever have "-altivec -vsx"? Jan > > The llvm bug description maybe a little misleading, because I started > it last week and then I had a different impression. But that's why I > pointed to comment #7 which is where I wrote the updated description, > which matches this patch (workaround). > > Oded > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev >
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
