On 27/01/17 08:44, Juan A. Suarez Romero wrote:
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:08 +0000, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
Fixes:
dEQP-VK.spirv_assembly.instruction.compute.opspecconstantop.vector_related
dEQP-VK.spirv_assembly.instruction.graphics.opspecconstantop.vector_related*
Signed-off-by: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwer...@intel.com>
---
src/compiler/spirv/spirv_to_nir.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/compiler/spirv/spirv_to_nir.c
b/src/compiler/spirv/spirv_to_nir.c
index 2d773b4373..8f39670f47 100644
--- a/src/compiler/spirv/spirv_to_nir.c
+++ b/src/compiler/spirv/spirv_to_nir.c
@@ -1113,23 +1113,43 @@ vtn_handle_constant(struct vtn_builder *b, SpvOp opcode,
SpvOp opcode = get_specialization(b, val, w[3]);
switch (opcode) {
case SpvOpVectorShuffle: {
- struct vtn_value *v0 = vtn_value(b, w[4], vtn_value_type_constant);
- struct vtn_value *v1 = vtn_value(b, w[5], vtn_value_type_constant);
- unsigned len0 = glsl_get_vector_elements(v0->const_type);
- unsigned len1 = glsl_get_vector_elements(v1->const_type);
+ struct vtn_value *v0 = &b->values[w[4]];
+ struct vtn_value *v1 = &b->values[w[5]];
+
+ assert(v0->value_type == vtn_value_type_constant ||
+ v0->value_type == vtn_value_type_undef);
+ assert(v1->value_type == vtn_value_type_constant ||
+ v1->value_type == vtn_value_type_undef);
+
+ unsigned len0 = v0->value_type == vtn_value_type_constant ?
+ glsl_get_vector_elements(v0->const_type) :
+ glsl_get_vector_elements(v0->type->type);
+ unsigned len1 = v1->value_type == vtn_value_type_constant ?
+ glsl_get_vector_elements(v1->const_type) :
+ glsl_get_vector_elements(v1->type->type);
Not sure if this is correct. Rather, I think the test is wrong.
According to OpVectorShuffle spec[1], it is true that it admits as
operands either a constant or an OpUndef.
But what the test does is calling OpSpecConstantOp[2], which is the
operation we are patching here.
And according to the spec, "all Operands must be the <id>s of other
constant instructions", being constant instructions those starting with
OpConstant or OpSpec. In this regard, OpUndef is not a constant.
I noticed this indeed. Given that test were specifically written to test
this, I thought OpVectorShuffle had priority on this rule.
I just filed a bug against the spec to get clarification on this.
Thanks
assert(len0 + len1 < 16);
unsigned bit_size = glsl_get_bit_size(val->const_type);
- assert(bit_size == glsl_get_bit_size(v0->const_type) &&
- bit_size == glsl_get_bit_size(v1->const_type));
+ unsigned bit_size0 = v0->value_type == vtn_value_type_constant ?
+ glsl_get_bit_size(v0->const_type) :
+ glsl_get_bit_size(v0->type->type);
+ unsigned bit_size1 = v1->value_type == vtn_value_type_constant ?
+ glsl_get_bit_size(v1->const_type) :
+ glsl_get_bit_size(v1->type->type);
+
+ assert(bit_size == bit_size0 && bit_size == bit_size1);
if (bit_size == 64) {
uint64_t u64[8];
- for (unsigned i = 0; i < len0; i++)
- u64[i] = v0->constant->values[0].u64[i];
- for (unsigned i = 0; i < len1; i++)
- u64[len0 + i] = v1->constant->values[0].u64[i];
+ for (unsigned i = 0; i < len0; i++) {
+ if (v0->value_type == vtn_value_type_constant)
+ u64[i] = v0->constant->values[0].u64[i];
+ }
+ for (unsigned i = 0; i < len1; i++) {
+ if (v1->value_type == vtn_value_type_constant)
+ u64[len0 + i] = v1->constant->values[0].u64[i];
+ }
for (unsigned i = 0, j = 0; i < count - 6; i++, j++) {
uint32_t comp = w[i + 6];
@@ -1143,11 +1163,15 @@ vtn_handle_constant(struct vtn_builder *b, SpvOp opcode,
}
} else {
uint32_t u32[8];
- for (unsigned i = 0; i < len0; i++)
- u32[i] = v0->constant->values[0].u32[i];
+ for (unsigned i = 0; i < len0; i++) {
+ if (v0->value_type == vtn_value_type_constant)
+ u32[i] = v0->constant->values[0].u32[i];
+ }
- for (unsigned i = 0; i < len1; i++)
- u32[len0 + i] = v1->constant->values[0].u32[i];
+ for (unsigned i = 0; i < len1; i++) {
+ if (v1->value_type == vtn_value_type_constant)
+ u32[len0 + i] = v1->constant->values[0].u32[i];
+ }
for (unsigned i = 0, j = 0; i < count - 6; i++, j++) {
uint32_t comp = w[i + 6];
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
