On Tuesday, May 05, 2015 02:31:39 PM Jason Ekstrand wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> > >> wrote: > >>> 2. CSE didn't use equals(), so it allowed things like types to differ, > >>> or source modifiers...(which are probably bogus on LOAD_PAYLOADs > >>> anyway, so it may be moot...) > >>> > >>> I like using equals(). But...it might make sense to relax BAD_FILE > >>> checks, i.e. reg_null_d and reg_null_f aren't different for practical > >>> purposes. (Thinking of header registers...) > >> > >> It doesn't make sense to have something that copies entirely BAD_FILE. > > > > That's not what he's saying at all. > > > > Right now, equals() called on a pair of load_payloads, one with > > reg_null_f and the other with reg_null_d as their first sources (that > > is, the header) would return false. Intuitively, that's not what we > > want. > > Um... This is in is_copy_payload not CSE. We aren't comparing two > payloads, we're comparing src[i] with src[0] for all i. How are they > all going to be BAD_FILE? > --Jason
Good point. If one is BAD_FILE, they'd all be BAD_FILE. Which is dumb (and pretty much invalid). Sorry for the confusion. Carry on :)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
