On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Roland Scheidegger <srol...@vmware.com> wrote:
> Am 05.04.2016 um 03:04 schrieb Jason Ekstrand: > > It's possible, when doing an x-tiled copy, to end up with a case where > the > > bytes parameter is equal to 16 but the pointer is not actually aligned. > > This causes asserts in debug mode and segfaults in release builds due to > > doing an aligned operation on an unaligned pointer. > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93962 > > --- > > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_tiled_memcpy.c | 48 > +++++++++++++------------- > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_tiled_memcpy.c > b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_tiled_memcpy.c > > index 19079d0..823d8b0 100644 > > --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_tiled_memcpy.c > > +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_tiled_memcpy.c > > @@ -85,19 +85,19 @@ rgba8_copy_aligned_dst(void *dst, const void *src, > size_t bytes) > > uint8_t const *s = src; > > > > #ifdef __SSSE3__ > > - if (bytes == 16) { > > - assert(!(((uintptr_t)dst) & 0xf)); > > - rgba8_copy_16_aligned_dst(d+ 0, s+ 0); > > - return dst; > > - } > > + if ((((uintptr_t)dst) & 0xf) == 0) { > > + if (bytes == 16) { > > + rgba8_copy_16_aligned_dst(d+ 0, s+ 0); > > + return dst; > > + } > > > > - if (bytes == 64) { > > - assert(!(((uintptr_t)dst) & 0xf)); > > - rgba8_copy_16_aligned_dst(d+ 0, s+ 0); > > - rgba8_copy_16_aligned_dst(d+16, s+16); > > - rgba8_copy_16_aligned_dst(d+32, s+32); > > - rgba8_copy_16_aligned_dst(d+48, s+48); > > - return dst; > > + if (bytes == 64) { > > + rgba8_copy_16_aligned_dst(d+ 0, s+ 0); > > + rgba8_copy_16_aligned_dst(d+16, s+16); > > + rgba8_copy_16_aligned_dst(d+32, s+32); > > + rgba8_copy_16_aligned_dst(d+48, s+48); > > + return dst; > > + } > > } > > #endif > > > > @@ -123,19 +123,19 @@ rgba8_copy_aligned_src(void *dst, const void *src, > size_t bytes) > > uint8_t const *s = src; > > > > #ifdef __SSSE3__ > > - if (bytes == 16) { > > - assert(!(((uintptr_t)src) & 0xf)); > > - rgba8_copy_16_aligned_src(d+ 0, s+ 0); > > - return dst; > > - } > > + if ((((uintptr_t)src) & 0xf) == 0) { > > + if (bytes == 16) { > > + rgba8_copy_16_aligned_src(d+ 0, s+ 0); > > + return dst; > > + } > > > > - if (bytes == 64) { > > - assert(!(((uintptr_t)src) & 0xf)); > > - rgba8_copy_16_aligned_src(d+ 0, s+ 0); > > - rgba8_copy_16_aligned_src(d+16, s+16); > > - rgba8_copy_16_aligned_src(d+32, s+32); > > - rgba8_copy_16_aligned_src(d+48, s+48); > > - return dst; > > + if (bytes == 64) { > > + rgba8_copy_16_aligned_src(d+ 0, s+ 0); > > + rgba8_copy_16_aligned_src(d+16, s+16); > > + rgba8_copy_16_aligned_src(d+32, s+32); > > + rgba8_copy_16_aligned_src(d+48, s+48); > > + return dst; > > + } > > } > > #endif > > > > > > Looks alright to me. Does that count as a revie? :-) > Do you plan on reapplying the code which was > reverted due to bug 93962 mentioned there? > (Though honestly that code was part 2 of a 4-part series and I was only > really interested in parts 3 and 4 which noone ever reviewed... I think > they'd still have value today but maybe that's just me...) > Yes, that was my plan. The real bug still existed if you built with -mssse3. Now that we've gotten it sorted out, the sse2 code should be fine as long as we make the corresponding change there.. It'd be nice to get that merged since I think you'd have to work pretty hard to find a machine with a GPU that works with the i965 driver and doesn't support SSE2. --Jason > Roland > >
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
