[Mesa-dev] Question about min_index/max_index calculation

2018-03-17 Thread Erico Nunes
Hi all, I have been working to add indexed drawing/glDrawElements support to the mesa-lima driver currently in development (https://github.com/yuq/mesa-lima). For that implementation, it seems that we need to have the minimum and maximum index values from the index buffer available in order to set

Re: time for amber2 branch?

2024-06-19 Thread Erico Nunes
On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 12:02 AM Mike Blumenkrantz wrote: > * lima We do maintain this, with reliable coverage in CI, and I haven't seen feedback of it particularly causing big pain for tree wide changes before. So I'd rather keep it in the main tree. At least for this round and as long as we kee

Re: [Mesa-dev] Question about min_index/max_index calculation

2018-03-26 Thread Erico Nunes
Thanks all for the input. I don't have an in-depth knowledge of the hardware either, though as far as we can see the hardware does expect that we pass min_index in the command stream. max_index is used to calculate the sizes in other command stream fields (which is not the same as pipe_draw_info.c

[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] nir: fix ir_binop_gequal glsl_to_nir conversion

2018-04-14 Thread Erico Nunes
ir_binop_gequal needs to be converted to nir_op_sge when native integers are not supported in the driver. Otherwise it becomes no different than ir_binop_less after the conversion. Signed-off-by: Erico Nunes --- src/compiler/glsl/glsl_to_nir.cpp | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] nir: fix ir_binop_gequal glsl_to_nir conversion

2018-04-14 Thread Erico Nunes
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 9:26 PM, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > Reviewed-by: Jason Ekstrand > > What driver is hitting this path? The !supports_ints path isn't used to my > knowledge so if some driver has started using it, they're liable to find > more bugs than just this one. :-) I'm doing some work

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] nir: fix ir_binop_gequal glsl_to_nir conversion

2018-04-16 Thread Erico Nunes
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 2:30 AM, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > On April 14, 2018 12:43:35 Connor Abbott wrote: > I think that it's probably impractical to use this path, and we should > probably delete it. There are just too many optimizations, e.g. in > nir_opt_algebraic and lowering passes that assum