Am 17.11.2015 um 21:27 schrieb Oded Gabbay: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Jan Vesely <jan.ves...@rutgers.edu> wrote: >> >> >> 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 > > There is no option, AFAIK, that altivec support is missing, but vsx > support exists. So, if we write "-altivec", then "-vsx" has no > meaning, cause there isn't vsx support anyway. > However, just to make it logically correct, I will send another > version that only disables vsx if altivec is enabled > > My guess is you could just adjust the comment instead. After all maybe it's really vsx which causes the bug, not just together with altivec. Albeit I guess vsx is more of an extension to altivec, so it might not even be possible, but in any case switching it off always looks like a good idea to me.
Roland _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
