On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> @@ -357,16 +394,22 @@ linear_to_xtiled_faster(uint32_t x0, uint32_t x1,
>> uint32_t x2, uint32_t x3,
>> if (mem_copy == memcpy)
>> return linear_to_xtiled(0, 0, xtile_width, xtile_width, 0,
>> xtile_height,
>> dst, src, src_pitch, swizzle_bit,
>> memcpy);
>> - else if (mem_copy == rgba8_copy)
>> + else if (mem_copy == rgba8_copy_aligned_dst)
>> return linear_to_xtiled(0, 0, xtile_width, xtile_width, 0,
>> xtile_height,
>> - dst, src, src_pitch, swizzle_bit,
>> rgba8_copy);
>> + dst, src, src_pitch, swizzle_bit,
>> + rgba8_copy_aligned_dst);
>> + else
>> + unreachable("not reached");
>
>
> I'm not sure what I think about the unreachable here. The original versions
> of the *_faster functions would work regardless of what memcpy you passed
> in.
Well, yeah, but there were only two. :)
> The *_faster was only to force the compiler to inline the universe in
> the case where we knew some parameters. Adding unreachable changes that.
Oh, I didn't know what you meant, until I realized that the if-elseif
is supposed to fall through to another function call in the case that
mem_copy wasn't matched.
At the very least I should split that out into a separate patch. Using
unreachable(), if it's safe, cuts more than 1k of text:
text data bss dec hex filename
9663 0 0 9663 25bf .libs/intel_tiled_memcpy.o
8215 0 0 8215 2017 .libs/intel_tiled_memcpy.o
I'll drop the unreachable()s from this patch.
> That said, we never call them with anything other than memcpy or
> rgba8_copy_aligned_* so it's probably ok. I think I'm ok with it with or
> without the unreachable()'s.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
