On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Connor Abbott writes:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
>>> Matt Turner writes:
>>>
From: Jason Ekstrand
This adds a parent_instr field similar to the one for ssa_def. The
difference here is that
Connor Abbott writes:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> Matt Turner writes:
>>
>>> From: Jason Ekstrand
>>>
>>> This adds a parent_instr field similar to the one for ssa_def. The
>>> difference here is that the parent_instr field on a nir_register can be
>>> NULL if the
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Matt Turner writes:
>
>> From: Jason Ekstrand
>>
>> This adds a parent_instr field similar to the one for ssa_def. The
>> difference here is that the parent_instr field on a nir_register can be
>> NULL if the register does not have a unique
Matt Turner writes:
> From: Jason Ekstrand
>
> This adds a parent_instr field similar to the one for ssa_def. The
> difference here is that the parent_instr field on a nir_register can be
> NULL if the register does not have a unique definition or if that
> definition does not dominate all its
This patch is
Reviewed-by: Connor Abbott
I'll leave it to the others to review the i965 stuff as I'm not as
well-versed in it, although it makes sense to me.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> From: Jason Ekstrand
>
> This adds a parent_instr field similar to the one for ss
From: Jason Ekstrand
This adds a parent_instr field similar to the one for ssa_def. The
difference here is that the parent_instr field on a nir_register can be
NULL if the register does not have a unique definition or if that
definition does not dominate all its uses. We set this field in the
o
