On Sat, 2016-09-17 at 09:40 +1000, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 15:25 -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Timothy Arceri <timothy.arceri@co
llabora.com> wrote:
> > > > > > From: Thomas Helland <thomashellan...@gmail.com>
> >
> >
snip
>
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
+ return -1;
+
+ /* do-while loops can increment the starting value before the condition is
+ * checked. e.g.
+ *
+ * do {
+ * ndx++;
+ * } while (ndx < 3);
+ *
+ * Here we check if the induction variable is used directly by the loop
+ * condition and if so we assume we need to step the initial value.
+ */
+ bool increment_before = false;
+ if (cond_alu->src[0].src.ssa == alu_def->def ||
+ cond_alu->src[1].src.ssa == alu_def->def) {
+ increment_before = true;
> >
> > Is there a reason why this can't be handled as "trip_count + 1"? This
> > seems way overcomplicated.
>
> Yes there is. We don't know that we will increment by 1 it could be by 10,
> also if we support more opts we may have to do a mul etc.
> We could set the initial value here but I decided to keep it all in
> get_iteration() I guess I could move this logic there also.
>
Ingonre that I see what you are getting at but it would be trip_count -
1. That should be ok if sub is lowered as you say.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
