On 12.10.2016 01:49, Tom Stellard wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 03:21:24PM +0200, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
On 11.10.2016 07:36, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 11 October 2016 at 12:13, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 11 October 2016 at 11:42, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 11 October 2016 at 05:50, Dave Airlie wrote:
Why does the IR need access to the scratch pointer at all? I don't understand
what problems the explicit IR argument is supposed to solve or why an intrinsic
would be needed. The value is only needed for lowering the access to scratch,
the user program shouldn't need to be aware it exists
O
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 03:21:24PM +0200, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> On 11.10.2016 07:36, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > On 11 October 2016 at 12:13, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >> On 11 October 2016 at 11:42, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >>> On 11 October 2016 at 05:50, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 10 October 2016 at 21
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Bas Nieuwenhuizen
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> On 11 October 2016 at 05:50, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>> On 10 October 2016 at 21:45, Arsenault, Matthew
>>> wrote:
I don't like adding explicit IR arguments for ABI arguments, es
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 11 October 2016 at 05:50, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> On 10 October 2016 at 21:45, Arsenault, Matthew
>> wrote:
>>> I don't like adding explicit IR arguments for ABI arguments, especially this
>>> one. Adding a special case for the first index f
On 11.10.2016 16:36, Arsenault, Matthew wrote:
Why does the IR need access to the scratch pointer at all? I don't
understand what problems the explicit IR argument is supposed to solve
or why an intrinsic would be needed. The value is only needed for
lowering the access to scratch, the user progr
On 11.10.2016 15:21, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
On 11.10.2016 07:36, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 11 October 2016 at 12:13, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 11 October 2016 at 11:42, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 11 October 2016 at 05:50, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 10 October 2016 at 21:45, Arsenault, Matthew
wrote:
I don'
On 11.10.2016 07:36, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 11 October 2016 at 12:13, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 11 October 2016 at 11:42, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 11 October 2016 at 05:50, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 10 October 2016 at 21:45, Arsenault, Matthew
wrote:
I don't like adding explicit IR arguments for ABI
On 11 October 2016 at 12:13, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 11 October 2016 at 11:42, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> On 11 October 2016 at 05:50, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>> On 10 October 2016 at 21:45, Arsenault, Matthew
>>> wrote:
I don't like adding explicit IR arguments for ABI arguments, especially
On 11 October 2016 at 11:42, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 11 October 2016 at 05:50, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> On 10 October 2016 at 21:45, Arsenault, Matthew
>> wrote:
>>> I don't like adding explicit IR arguments for ABI arguments, especially this
>>> one. Adding a special case for the first index feels
On 11 October 2016 at 05:50, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 10 October 2016 at 21:45, Arsenault, Matthew
> wrote:
>> I don't like adding explicit IR arguments for ABI arguments, especially this
>> one. Adding a special case for the first index feels dirty. The rest of llvm
>> also won't be aware of the
t and then codegen would
have to fail in some way when the argument is missing
_
From: Nicolai Hähnle mailto:nhaeh...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 16:07
Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 2/2] [RFC] radv: add scratch support for
spilling.
To: Ar
On 10 October 2016 at 21:45, Arsenault, Matthew
wrote:
> I don't like adding explicit IR arguments for ABI arguments, especially this
> one. Adding a special case for the first index feels dirty. The rest of llvm
> also won't be aware of the specialness of the argument. It would be
> problematic b
I'd like the scratch buffer to be the first descriptor in RW_BUFFERS,
that means s_load_dwordx2 ptr, s[0:1], 0x0.
Please don't add any other user data SGPRs to radeonsi.
Marek
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> On 10.10.2016 05:45, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>
>> On 10 October 2
On 10.10.2016 05:45, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 10 October 2016 at 13:25, Dave Airlie wrote:
From: Dave Airlie
This is a bit of a hack due to how llvm currently handles
spilling in it's shader ABI. Currently llvm amdgpu backend
uses relocations to patch the shader with the address of
the tmpring.
On 10 October 2016 at 13:25, Dave Airlie wrote:
> From: Dave Airlie
>
> This is a bit of a hack due to how llvm currently handles
> spilling in it's shader ABI. Currently llvm amdgpu backend
> uses relocations to patch the shader with the address of
> the tmpring. The driver loads the shader and
From: Dave Airlie
This is a bit of a hack due to how llvm currently handles
spilling in it's shader ABI. Currently llvm amdgpu backend
uses relocations to patch the shader with the address of
the tmpring. The driver loads the shader and patches the
relocations.
However for vulkan this doesn't wo
17 matches
Mail list logo
