> On Dec 7, 2016, at 11:03, Jan Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 11:05 -0800, Matt Arsenault wrote:
>>> On Dec 6, 2016, at 11:04, Jan Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 10:52 -0800, Matt Arsenault wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 5, 2016, at 12:42, Jan Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 2016-12-05 at 09:48 -0800, [email protected]
>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> From: Matt Arsenault <[email protected]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> .../execute/negative-private-base-pointer.cl | 120
>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 120 insertions(+)
>>>>>> create mode 100644
>>>>>> tests/cl/program/execute/negative-private-base-pointer.cl
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/tests/cl/program/execute/negative-private-base-pointer.cl
>>>>>> b/tests/cl/program/execute/negative-private-base-pointer.cl
>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>> index 0000000..7ee528b
>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>> +++ b/tests/cl/program/execute/negative-private-base-pointer.cl
>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
>>>>>> +/*!
>>>>>> +[config]
>>>>>> +name: negative private buffer base index
>>>>>> +clc_version_min: 10
>>>>>> +dimensions: 1
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +[test]
>>>>>> +kernel_name: read_write_private_base_plus_offset
>>>>>> +name: negative base private index
>>>>>> +global_size: 1 0 0
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +arg_out: 0 buffer int[16] \
>>>>>> + 0xab \
>>>>>> + 0xbc \
>>>>>> + 0xabcd \
>>>>>> + 0xdead \
>>>>>> + \
>>>>>> + 0xcafe \
>>>>>> + 0xf00d \
>>>>>> + 0xababfeed \
>>>>>> + 0xca00fe \
>>>>>> + \
>>>>>> + 0xb00feed \
>>>>>> + 0xca00fe \
>>>>>> + 0xfeedbeef \
>>>>>> + 0xfe \
>>>>>> + \
>>>>>> + 0xbe00fe \
>>>>>> + 0xabcdef \
>>>>>> + 0xbeef \
>>>>>> + 0xde
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +arg_in: 1 buffer int[16] \
>>>>>> + -1 \
>>>>>> + -1 \
>>>>>> + -4 \
>>>>>> + -4 \
>>>>>> + \
>>>>>> + -3 \
>>>>>> + -4 \
>>>>>> + -2 \
>>>>>> + -115 \
>>>>>> + \
>>>>>> + -109 \
>>>>>> + -1015 \
>>>>>> + -1011 \
>>>>>> + -1020 \
>>>>>> + \
>>>>>> + -1014 \
>>>>>> + -137 \
>>>>>> + -151 \
>>>>>> + -40
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +!*/
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#if 0
>>>>>> + 0xab \
>>>>>> + 0xbc \
>>>>>> + 0xf00d \
>>>>>> + 0xdead \
>>>>>> + 0xcafe \
>>>>>> + 0xabcd \
>>>>>> + 0xababfeed \
>>>>>> + 0xca00fe \
>>>>>> + 0xb00feed \
>>>>>> + 0xca00fe \
>>>>>> + 0xfeedbeef \
>>>>>> + 0xfe \
>>>>>> + 0xbe00fe \
>>>>>> + 0xabcdef \
>>>>>> + 0xbeef \
>>>>>> + 0xde
>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +kernel void read_write_private_base_plus_offset(global int* out, global
>>>>>> int* in)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + volatile int alloca[16];
>>>>>
>>>>> does this need to be volatile?
>>>>>
>>>>> other than that:
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Jan Vesely <[email protected]
>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>> Yes, otherwise the private memory access will be trivially optimized
>>>> out defeating the point of the test
>>>
>>> I don't get the trivial part. what would that be optimized to? the
>>> indices are using values from input buffer (therefore unknown), so it
>>> cannot directly match the constants to corresponding position in out
>>> buffer.
>>>
>>> Jan
>>
>> This could be replaced with a series of selects or hit the move to LDS
>> optimization
>
> right, thanks. I didn't consider move to LDS.
>
> last question. what's the purpose of that #if 0 block?
>
> Jan
I think it was just other values I was going to test but then never finished
them
_______________________________________________
Piglit mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
