On 2015-12-10 22:15, Marek Olšák wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Michel Dänzer <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 10.12.2015 06:58, Marek Olšák wrote:
From: Marek Olšák <[email protected]>
Both caused a crash due to a division by zero in that function.
This is an alternative fix.
Cc: 11.0 11.1 <[email protected]>
---
src/gallium/drivers/radeonsi/si_state_draw.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/gallium/drivers/radeonsi/si_state_draw.c
b/src/gallium/drivers/radeonsi/si_state_draw.c
index ee84a1f..e550011 100644
--- a/src/gallium/drivers/radeonsi/si_state_draw.c
+++ b/src/gallium/drivers/radeonsi/si_state_draw.c
@@ -216,6 +216,18 @@ static void si_emit_derived_tess_state(struct
si_context *sctx,
radeon_emit(cs, tcs_out_layout | (num_tcs_output_cp << 26));
}
+static unsigned si_num_prims_for_vertices(const struct
pipe_draw_info *info)
+{
+ switch (info->mode) {
+ case PIPE_PRIM_PATCHES:
+ return info->count / info->vertices_per_patch;
+ case R600_PRIM_RECTANGLE_LIST:
+ return info->count / 3;
+ default:
+ return u_prims_for_vertices(info->mode, info->count);
+ }
+}
I don't suppose it makes sense to handle PIPE_PRIM_PATCHES in
u_prims_for_vertices? Either way,
u_prims_for_vertices has an assertion that fails if mode == PATCHES.
That's sufficient.
Marek
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
I prefer this combined solution now. Many thanks,
Reviewed-by: Edward O'Callaghan <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
