On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote: > On 10.12.2015 06:58, Marek Olšák wrote: >> From: Marek Olšák <marek.ol...@amd.com> >> >> Both caused a crash due to a division by zero in that function. >> This is an alternative fix. >> >> Cc: 11.0 11.1 <mesa-sta...@lists.freedesktop.org> >> --- >> src/gallium/drivers/radeonsi/si_state_draw.c | 14 +++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/gallium/drivers/radeonsi/si_state_draw.c >> b/src/gallium/drivers/radeonsi/si_state_draw.c >> index ee84a1f..e550011 100644 >> --- a/src/gallium/drivers/radeonsi/si_state_draw.c >> +++ b/src/gallium/drivers/radeonsi/si_state_draw.c >> @@ -216,6 +216,18 @@ static void si_emit_derived_tess_state(struct >> si_context *sctx, >> radeon_emit(cs, tcs_out_layout | (num_tcs_output_cp << 26)); >> } >> >> +static unsigned si_num_prims_for_vertices(const struct pipe_draw_info *info) >> +{ >> + switch (info->mode) { >> + case PIPE_PRIM_PATCHES: >> + return info->count / info->vertices_per_patch; >> + case R600_PRIM_RECTANGLE_LIST: >> + return info->count / 3; >> + default: >> + return u_prims_for_vertices(info->mode, info->count); >> + } >> +} > > I don't suppose it makes sense to handle PIPE_PRIM_PATCHES in > u_prims_for_vertices? Either way,
u_prims_for_vertices has an assertion that fails if mode == PATCHES. That's sufficient. Marek _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev