Argh, I am really sorry about that :-(
It seems I didn't push the right version patch (the one I sent for
review) but a previous version of that. The patch that Lionel sent to
fix this is exactly what I had changed in the version I sent for
review.
I am dorry for the mess, I'll be more careful ne
On Thu, 2019-01-17 at 12:57 -0600, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> Yup, that'll do it. Gotta watch out for ++... Assuming it fixes the
> problem, that patch is
>
> Reviewed-by: Jason Ekstrand
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:35 PM Lionel Landwerlin <
> lionel.g.landwer...@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >
Yup, that'll do it. Gotta watch out for ++... Assuming it fixes the
problem, that patch is
Reviewed-by: Jason Ekstrand
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:35 PM Lionel Landwerlin <
lionel.g.landwer...@intel.com> wrote:
> Looking at the change the binding table emission, I think the image++ has
> been
Looking at the change the binding table emission, I think the image++
has been moved such that it doesn't produce the same tables anymore.
Trying this change on CI :
https://github.com/djdeath/mesa/commit/a6b8eaf1325389d94d1d8a5b3bb952a362125eb2
On 17/01/2019 18:19, Clayton Craft wrote:
Quotin
Quoting Mark Janes (2019-01-17 10:13:37)
> Hi Iago,
>
> It looks like you tested this patch in CI and got the same failures that
> we are seeing on master:
>
> http://mesa-ci-results.jf.intel.com/itoral/builds/263/group/63a9f0ea7bb98050796b649e85481845
The correct link is:
https://mesa-ci.01.org
Hi Iago,
It looks like you tested this patch in CI and got the same failures that
we are seeing on master:
http://mesa-ci-results.jf.intel.com/itoral/builds/263/group/63a9f0ea7bb98050796b649e85481845
Why was this patch pushed?
-Mark
Mark Janes writes:
> This patch regresses thousands of test
This patch regresses thousands of tests on BDW and HSW:
http://mesa-ci-results.jf.intel.com/vulkancts/builds/10035/group/63a9f0ea7bb98050796b649e85481845#fails
I'll revert it as soon as my testing completes.
Iago Toral Quiroga writes:
> We had defined MAX_IMAGES as 8, which we used to size the
Yup.
Reviewed-by: Jason Ekstrand
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 6:08 AM Iago Toral wrote:
> Jason, does this version look good to you?
>
> On Mon, 2019-01-14 at 12:42 +0100, Iago Toral Quiroga wrote:
> > We had defined MAX_IMAGES as 8, which we used to size the array for
> > image push constant data.
Jason, does this version look good to you?
On Mon, 2019-01-14 at 12:42 +0100, Iago Toral Quiroga wrote:
> We had defined MAX_IMAGES as 8, which we used to size the array for
> image push constant data. The comment there stated that this was for
> gen8, but anv_nir_apply_pipeline_layout runs for al
We had defined MAX_IMAGES as 8, which we used to size the array for
image push constant data. The comment there stated that this was for
gen8, but anv_nir_apply_pipeline_layout runs for all gens and writes
that array, asserting that we don't exceed that number of images,
which imposes a limit of MA
10 matches
Mail list logo
