On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Connor Abbott <cwabbo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I agree with Ken that the regressions are small enough, and it seems > > they're mostly stuff we can prevent by being smarter when doing the > > sel peephole, so it seems like the cleanup that will probably help > > other passes is worth it. > > So, usually we do that as a preparatory patch. Why aren't we doing that > here? > Do what in a preparatory patch? Fix up the sel peephole to be able to handle "if (foo) bar = baz;"? Sure, I can put that patch together. > NIR instruction counts is not the metric we care about. > No, but cleaning things up means that we can do other optimizations better. Also, in each of those cases, the non-ssa NIR code was better it was just less cleanable by the backend. We need to work on that, but I don't think it's an indicator of a problem. --Jason
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
