On 6 July 2011 15:03, Paul Berry wrote:
> On 6 July 2011 12:18, Ian Romanick wrote:
>>
>> One other question: does this series cause any piglit regressions on
>> platforms that require flow-control lowering (e.g., i915 or r300)?
>
> I don't know. I will try to get ahold of a test platform when I
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 12:18:18PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
> This is an area that I've been thinking about lately. I noticed that
> XCB uses a framework called check (http://check.sourceforge.net/), and
> I've been wanting to talk to Jamey and Josh about their experience with
> it, but I never
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 12:18:18PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 07/05/2011 03:07 PM, Paul Berry wrote:
> > The following patch series fixes bug #36669 (EmitNoMainReturn set
> > to 1 doesn't make the GLSL compiler lower all the RET opcodes) as
On 6 July 2011 12:18, Ian Romanick wrote:
>
> The only other unit tests in Mesa are for the old matrix math routines
> (fixed function). See src/mesa/math/m_debug*.c.
>
> This is an area that I've been thinking about lately. I noticed that
> XCB uses a framework called check (http://check.source
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/05/2011 03:07 PM, Paul Berry wrote:
> The following patch series fixes bug #36669 (EmitNoMainReturn set
> to 1 doesn't make the GLSL compiler lower all the RET opcodes) as
> well as several other bugs I found in the course of reviewing
> lower_ju
The following patch series fixes bug #36669 (EmitNoMainReturn set
to 1 doesn't make the GLSL compiler lower all the RET opcodes) as
well as several other bugs I found in the course of reviewing
lower_jumps.cpp. Some of these bugs prevented certain jumps from
ever being lowered, or produced asserti
