Btw where can I find some more info on stack_size ? I assumed it should represent the amout of max stacked exec_mask, but it looks like it is possible to have much more "manually" pushed exec_mask level than reported by nstack (iiuc a push count as much as a 1/4 of a loop level).
----- Mail original ----- > De : Vadim Girlin <[email protected]> > À : Vincent Lejeune <[email protected]> > Cc : Alex Deucher <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Envoyé le : Dimanche 31 mars 2013 22h34 > Objet : Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] r600g: don't reserve more stack space than > required v4 > > On 04/01/2013 12:00 AM, Vincent Lejeune wrote: >> Hi Vadim, >> >> Does this patch work ? (It's still not pushed) > > It works for me on evergreen, but I'm not sure about other chip generations. > I wanted to ask somebody to test it, but the problem is that the piglit > coverage > for this is not enough (e.g. initial version of this patch had no regressions > with piglit but resulted in artifacts with Heaven). I thought about adding > more > control flow tests but haven't written them yet. The same algorithm > seemingly works in my r600-sb branch with other chips, but the test coverage > with that branch is even lower due to the if-conversion that eliminates most > of > the conditional control flow. > > I usually prefer not to push any patches until I'm sure that they are not > breaking anything. But well, possibly in this case it's easier to simply > push it and wait for the bug reports. I think I'll check if it needs > rebasing and push it in a day or two if there are no objections. > > Vadim > >> I'm working on doing native control flow for llvm and intend to port > your patch on the control flow reservation. >> >> Vincent > _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
