On 12/16/2014 05:44 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 16 December 2014 at 08:59, Vadim Girlin wrote:
On 12/16/2014 01:30 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
New patch is attached, the only difference is in the sb_sched.cpp (it
disables copy coalescing for some "unsafe" cases, so it may leave more
MOVs
than prev
On 16 December 2014 at 08:59, Vadim Girlin wrote:
> On 12/16/2014 01:30 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
>
>
> New patch is attached, the only difference is in the sb_sched.cpp (it
> disables copy coalescing for some "unsafe" cases, so it may leave more
> MOVs
> than previously
On 12/16/2014 01:30 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
New patch is attached, the only difference is in the sb_sched.cpp (it
disables copy coalescing for some "unsafe" cases, so it may leave more
MOVs
than previously, but I don't think there will be any noticeable effect on
performance).
So far I don't se
>>>
>>>
>>> New patch is attached, the only difference is in the sb_sched.cpp (it
>>> disables copy coalescing for some "unsafe" cases, so it may leave more
>>> MOVs
>>> than previously, but I don't think there will be any noticeable effect on
>>> performance).
>>>
>>> So far I don't see any proble
On 12/12/2014 05:28 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Vadim Girlin wrote:
On 12/09/2014 07:39 AM, Vadim Girlin wrote:
On 12/09/2014 05:18 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 8 December 2014 at 20:41, Vadim Girlin wrote:
On 12/06/2014 07:13 AM, Vadim Girlin wrote:
On 12/04
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Vadim Girlin wrote:
> On 12/09/2014 07:39 AM, Vadim Girlin wrote:
>>
>> On 12/09/2014 05:18 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8 December 2014 at 20:41, Vadim Girlin wrote:
On 12/06/2014 07:13 AM, Vadim Girlin wrote:
>
>
> On 12/04/2014 01:43
On 12/09/2014 07:39 AM, Vadim Girlin wrote:
On 12/09/2014 05:18 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 8 December 2014 at 20:41, Vadim Girlin wrote:
On 12/06/2014 07:13 AM, Vadim Girlin wrote:
On 12/04/2014 01:43 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
Hi Vadim,
I've been looking with Glenn's help into a bug in sb for
On 12/09/2014 05:18 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 8 December 2014 at 20:41, Vadim Girlin wrote:
On 12/06/2014 07:13 AM, Vadim Girlin wrote:
On 12/04/2014 01:43 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
Hi Vadim,
I've been looking with Glenn's help into a bug in sb for a couple of
weeks now triggered by a change
On 8 December 2014 at 20:41, Vadim Girlin wrote:
> On 12/06/2014 07:13 AM, Vadim Girlin wrote:
>>
>> On 12/04/2014 01:43 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Vadim,
>>>
>>> I've been looking with Glenn's help into a bug in sb for a couple of
>>> weeks now triggered by a change in how GLSL generates s
On 9 December 2014 at 10:25, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 8 December 2014 at 20:41, Vadim Girlin wrote:
>> On 12/06/2014 07:13 AM, Vadim Girlin wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/04/2014 01:43 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
Hi Vadim,
I've been looking with Glenn's help into a bug in sb for a couple of
>
On 8 December 2014 at 20:41, Vadim Girlin wrote:
> On 12/06/2014 07:13 AM, Vadim Girlin wrote:
>>
>> On 12/04/2014 01:43 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Vadim,
>>>
>>> I've been looking with Glenn's help into a bug in sb for a couple of
>>> weeks now triggered by a change in how GLSL generates s
On 12/06/2014 07:13 AM, Vadim Girlin wrote:
On 12/04/2014 01:43 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
Hi Vadim,
I've been looking with Glenn's help into a bug in sb for a couple of
weeks now triggered by a change in how GLSL generates switch
statements.
I understand you probably aren't too interested in r600
On 12/06/2014 08:01 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Vadim Girlin wrote:
On 12/06/2014 07:50 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Vadim Girlin
wrote:
I suspect we should rather get rid of such loops somehow, i.e. convert to
something else, the loop t
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Vadim Girlin wrote:
> On 12/06/2014 07:50 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Vadim Girlin
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I suspect we should rather get rid of such loops somehow, i.e. convert to
>>> something else, the loop that never repeats is not re
On 12/06/2014 07:50 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Vadim Girlin wrote:
I suspect we should rather get rid of such loops somehow, i.e. convert to
something else, the loop that never repeats is not really a loop anyway.
AFAICS "continue" is not supported in switch statemen
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Vadim Girlin wrote:
> I suspect we should rather get rid of such loops somehow, i.e. convert to
> something else, the loop that never repeats is not really a loop anyway.
> AFAICS "continue" is not supported in switch statements according to GLSL
> specs, so the loo
On 12/04/2014 01:43 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
Hi Vadim,
I've been looking with Glenn's help into a bug in sb for a couple of
weeks now triggered by a change in how GLSL generates switch
statements.
I understand you probably aren't too interested in r600g but I believe
I'm hitting a design level pr
Hi Vadim,
I've been looking with Glenn's help into a bug in sb for a couple of
weeks now triggered by a change in how GLSL generates switch
statements.
I understand you probably aren't too interested in r600g but I believe
I'm hitting a design level problem and I would like some advice.
So it ap
18 matches
Mail list logo
