https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29789
--- Comment #1 from David Ronis 2010-09-02 18:29:58 PDT
---
Ping! I just updated to the git/master. The problem remains.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > - Later Radeons and NV chips: I thought that these each had their own
>> > register allocators than ran after Mesa's. These should be able to do
>> > the right thing. Yes?
>>
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >
> > - Later Radeons and NV chips: I thought that these each had their own
> > register allocators than ran after Mesa's. These should be able to do
> > the right thing. Yes?
>
> r600c doesn't have anything smart for register allocation y
>
> - Later Radeons and NV chips: I thought that these each had their own
> register allocators than ran after Mesa's. These should be able to do
> the right thing. Yes?
r600c doesn't have anything smart for register allocation yet. We've
had regression reports since Eric's change
https://bug
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21783
Sven Arvidsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
>> I think we need to be sure we're not infringing on this patent. Until
>> we know one way or the other I'd prefer that we don't merge this
>> branch into master. In the mean time I'll see if I can learn more
>> about the situation and find a way to proceed.
I'm going to bring this up again in
The nv30/nv40 driver expects that all optimizations that can be
performed on TGSI without target knowledge to have already been
performed.
This seems a sensible principle in general to avoid drivers duplicating work.
In particular, registers are expected to be optimally allocated.
Doing this in th
