On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Jason Ekstrand
> wrote:
> > First off, how is this different from the sel peephole?
>
> This happens in the visitor during translation from GLSL IR to FS IR.
> It only looks for an exact sequence of IF/MOV/ELSE
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> First off, how is this different from the sel peephole?
This happens in the visitor during translation from GLSL IR to FS IR.
It only looks for an exact sequence of IF/MOV/ELSE/MOV/ENDIF where the
MOVs are to the same destination.
The peeph
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On Friday, November 21, 2014 10:23:43 AM Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
>> > The rest of our backend optimizations have replaced the need for this
>> > since it was written.
>> >
>> > instructions
On Dec 4, 2014 11:22 PM, "Kenneth Graunke" wrote:
>
> On Friday, November 21, 2014 10:23:43 AM Matt Turner wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> > > The rest of our backend optimizations have replaced the need for this
> > > since it was written.
> > >
> > > instruction
On Friday, November 21, 2014 10:23:43 AM Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> > The rest of our backend optimizations have replaced the need for this
> > since it was written.
> >
> > instructions in affected programs: 30626 -> 30564 (-0.20%)
> >
> > Hurts
On 12/04/2014 06:06 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
>> Thoughts?
>
> Ping^2
Seems reasonable enough... any progress on the "common ternary pattern"
better? (I deleted the original message, so I reviewed the patch from
the list archive.)
> _
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> Thoughts?
Ping^2
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> The rest of our backend optimizations have replaced the need for this
> since it was written.
>
> instructions in affected programs: 30626 -> 30564 (-0.20%)
>
> Hurts a small number of CSGO shaders by one instruction, but helps even
> more.
The rest of our backend optimizations have replaced the need for this
since it was written.
instructions in affected programs: 30626 -> 30564 (-0.20%)
Hurts a small number of CSGO shaders by one instruction, but helps even
more. Hurts two by a larger number because of something I noticed when
