On Wed, 2018-10-31 at 13:22 +1100, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> On 31/10/18 1:23 am, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > Weird. I didn't expect this patch to have any impact whatsoever.
> > I
> > thought it was just moving around the way we emit stuff.
>
> I think I've spotted the problem. Iago does patch 1 he
On 31/10/18 1:23 am, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
Weird. I didn't expect this patch to have any impact whatsoever. I
thought it was just moving around the way we emit stuff.
I think I've spotted the problem. Iago does patch 1 help with the
regressions you are seeing.
https://patchwork.freedesktop.
Weird. I didn't expect this patch to have any impact whatsoever. I thought
it was just moving around the way we emit stuff.
On October 30, 2018 08:40:01 Iago Toral wrote:
Jason, JFYI, I have been looking into the cases where the boolean
bitsize lowering pass was producing worse instruction c
Jason, JFYI, I have been looking into the cases where the boolean
bitsize lowering pass was producing worse instruction counts that the
default 32-bit pass and I have tracked it down to this patch. Reverting
this makes the instruction count much better for some tests, I'll check
why this happens to
On 22/10/18 23:13, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> Instead of doing our own constant folding, we just emit instructions and
> let constant folding happen. This is substantially simpler and lets us
> use the nir_imm_bool helper instead of dealing with the const_value's
> ourselves.
> ---
> src/compiler/n
Looks ok to me.
Reviewed-by: Timothy Arceri
On 23/10/18 9:13 am, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
Instead of doing our own constant folding, we just emit instructions and
let constant folding happen. This is substantially simpler and lets us
use the nir_imm_bool helper instead of dealing with the const_
Instead of doing our own constant folding, we just emit instructions and
let constant folding happen. This is substantially simpler and lets us
use the nir_imm_bool helper instead of dealing with the const_value's
ourselves.
---
src/compiler/nir/nir_opt_if.c | 91 -
