On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> >>> > diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp >>> > b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp >>> > index af8c087..ea91705 100644 >>> > --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp >>> > +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp >>> > @@ -310,8 +310,8 @@ fs_visitor::VARYING_PULL_CONSTANT_LOAD(const fs_reg >>> > &dst, >>> > inst->mlen = 1 + dispatch_width / 8; >>> > } >>> > >>> > - vec4_result.reg_offset += (const_offset & 3) * scale; >>> > - instructions.push_tail(MOV(dst, vec4_result)); >>> > + fs_reg result = offset(vec4_result, (const_offset & 3) * scale); >>> > + instructions.push_tail(MOV(dst, result)); >>> >>> Isn't this going to cause us to copy an fs_reg twice, rather than just >>> setting .reg_offset? >>> >>> I'd like to check the generated code. >> >> What's your concern there? Just that we're useing more CPU? > > Yeah, that we're now potentially copying an fs_reg twice when our > purpose is just to set a single integer.
Ignore this feedback for now. You've got a bunch of patches that would have to be rebased if we changed this and it should be really trivial to fix it up after the fact. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
