On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 02:22 -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote: > 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.
Agreed. > 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? Yes, that would be better. Should I just push a commit adding the assertion then? I guess there is not much to review about it :) Iago _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
