Is "XXX" in the comment really necessary? Marek
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 3:20 AM Samuel Pitoiset <[email protected]> wrote: > They are buggy with LLVM 8 because they weren't marked as source > of divergence, see r358579. > > Fixes: dd0172e865f ("radv: Use structured intrinsics instead of indexing > workaround for GFX9.")" > Signed-off-by: Samuel Pitoiset <[email protected]> > --- > src/amd/common/ac_nir_to_llvm.c | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/src/amd/common/ac_nir_to_llvm.c > b/src/amd/common/ac_nir_to_llvm.c > index 3890aebc982..fcd75903088 100644 > --- a/src/amd/common/ac_nir_to_llvm.c > +++ b/src/amd/common/ac_nir_to_llvm.c > @@ -2634,7 +2634,10 @@ static LLVMValueRef visit_image_atomic(struct > ac_nir_context *ctx, > params[param_count++] = > LLVMBuildExtractElement(ctx->ac.builder, get_src(ctx, instr->src[1]), > > ctx->ac.i32_0, ""); /* vindex */ > params[param_count++] = ctx->ac.i32_0; /* voffset */ > - if (HAVE_LLVM >= 0x800) { > + if (HAVE_LLVM >= 0x900) { > + /* XXX: The new raw/struct atomic intrinsics are > buggy > + * with LLVM 8, see r358579. > + */ > params[param_count++] = ctx->ac.i32_0; /* soffset > */ > params[param_count++] = ctx->ac.i32_0; /* slc */ > > -- > 2.21.0 > > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
