I had a chance to look at the patches in detail now. Thanks for working
on this, it should be quite useful!
With the remark on patch 1 addressed, patches 1, 2, and 4-9 are
Reviewed-by: Nicolai Hähnle
I've sent some more extensive comments on patch 3, and I already
explained that I don't like
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017, at 12:30 AM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> On 25.06.2017 09:18, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> > On 25.06.2017 03:31, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> >> There are still a handful of piglit tests failing and I'm yet to test
> >> that there are no regressions in the non-packed path, but I'd really
>
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017, at 12:18 AM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> On 25.06.2017 03:31, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> > There are still a handful of piglit tests failing and I'm yet to test
> > that there are no regressions in the non-packed path, but I'd really
> > like some feedback on the approach as Dave has
On 25.06.2017 09:18, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
On 25.06.2017 03:31, Timothy Arceri wrote:
There are still a handful of piglit tests failing and I'm yet to test
that there are no regressions in the non-packed path, but I'd really
like some feedback on the approach as Dave has flagged it as a possible
On 25.06.2017 03:31, Timothy Arceri wrote:
There are still a handful of piglit tests failing and I'm yet to test
that there are no regressions in the non-packed path, but I'd really
like some feedback on the approach as Dave has flagged it as a possible
controversial tgsi change.
In order to avo
There are still a handful of piglit tests failing and I'm yet to test
that there are no regressions in the non-packed path, but I'd really
like some feedback on the approach as Dave has flagged it as a possible
controversial tgsi change.
In order to avoid complicated swizzling and array element ad
