On Thursday, June 05, 2014 03:03:05 PM Iago Toral Quiroga wrote: > When a instruction stream ends in a block structure (like a IF/ELSE/ENDIF) the > last block's end pointer will not be set, leading to a crash later on in > fs_live_variables::setup_def_use(). > > If we have not assigned the end pointer of the last block, set it to the last > instruction. > --- > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_cfg.cpp | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_cfg.cpp b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_cfg.cpp > index 6bf99f1..d4647c4 100644 > --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_cfg.cpp > +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_cfg.cpp > @@ -257,6 +257,11 @@ cfg_t::cfg_t(exec_list *instructions) > } > } > > + /* If the instruction stream ended with a block structure we need to > + set the block's end pointer to the last instruction here */ > + if (!cur->end) > + cur->end = (backend_instruction *)instructions->get_tail(); > + > cur->end_ip = ip; > > make_block_array(); >
I'm not too excited about this patch - threads must terminate with a SEND message to a particular shared function, such as a URB write or FB write. So the instruction stream really shouldn't end in an IF/ELSE/ENDIF. I think we should probably just drop it, as it isn't needed for the latest version of your series anyway. That said, perhaps we should add an assert(cur->end) here? It seems like catching this problem earlier than fs_live_variables::setup_def_use would be nice. What do you think?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
