On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Jason Ekstrand
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Matt Turner
> wrote:
> >>
> >> The i965 backends pass something out of 'screen', which is allocated
> >> per-process, making using this as a ral
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
>>
>> The i965 backends pass something out of 'screen', which is allocated
>> per-process, making using this as a ralloc context not thread-safe.
>>
>> All callers ra_alloc_interference_
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> The i965 backends pass something out of 'screen', which is allocated
> per-process, making using this as a ralloc context not thread-safe.
>
> All callers ra_alloc_interference_graph() already ralloc_free() its
> return value.
> ---
> src/ut
The i965 backends pass something out of 'screen', which is allocated
per-process, making using this as a ralloc context not thread-safe.
All callers ra_alloc_interference_graph() already ralloc_free() its
return value.
---
src/util/register_allocate.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 del