On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez
<sigles...@igalia.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 19/09/15 01:56, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:35:16PM +0200, Iago Toral Quiroga wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> this is the latest version of the ARB_shader_storage_buffer_object
>>> implementation. A good part of the frontend bits for this are already in
>>> master, but this adds some more missing pieces, specifically std430 and
>>> memory qualifiers. Additionally, this provides the i965 implementation.
>>
>> I've gone through all patches in the series and I replied to patches
>> where I had comments. Overall, the series look good and with the
>> comments addressed, I'm ready to give my Reviewed-by for the series.
>> I want to take a closer look at the atomics lowering in patches 49+,
>> but I'm done for today. Base on the quick look-through I did, I don't
>> expect to find any showstoppers there.
>>
>> Here's a summary of what I found:
>>
>> [PATCH v5 01/70] mesa: set MAX_SHADER_STORAGE_BUFFERS to 15.
>>
>> Update limit to 16 and drop the comment
>>
>> [PATCH v5 02/70] i965: Use 16-byte offset alignment for shader storage
>> buffers
>>
>> ctx->Const.ShaderStorageBufferOffsetAlignment should be 64
>>
>> [PATCH v5 23/70] glsl: refactor parser processing of an interface block
>> definition
>>
>> Clarify that the commit is just moving code.
>>
>> [PATCH v5 26/70] glsl: Add parser/compiler support for std430 interface
>> packing qualifier
>>
>> Update the error to also mention shader storage blocks, not just ubos?
>>
>> [PATCH v5 28/70] glsl: add std430 interface packing support to ssbo related
>> operations
>>
>> Why are we passing false for is_std430 here (emit_access in
>> handle_rvalue)? We use handle_rvalue for both UBO and SSBO loads,
>> right? Also, for consistency, I'd prefer if we could just pass
>> 'packing' around instead of is_std430.
>>
>> [PATCH v5 29/70] glsl: a shader storage buffer must be smaller than the
>> maximum size allowed
>>
>> Two chunks look like they should be their own patch ("Add unsized
>> array support to glsl_type::std140_size" or such).
>>
>> [PATCH v5 38/70] i965/nir/vec4: Implement nir_intrinsic_store_ssbo
>>
>> Shouldn't this be 'skipped_channels += num_channels;' to handle write mask
>> reg.yw?
>>
>> [PATCH v5 40/70] nir: Implement __intrinsic_load_ssbo
>>
>> Refactor handling of cmp instruction for converting to bool
>>
>> [PATCH v5 54/70] glsl: First argument to atomic functions must be a buffer
>> variable
>>
>> Nitpick: move check that only looks at first element in list to after loop
>>
>> Also, I expect that before we land this series (thought that shouldn't
>> be far off), we'll have deleted the vec4 GLSL IR visitor so we can
>> drop these patches (I didn't review them):
>>
>> [PATCH v5 16/70] i965/vec4: Implement ir_unop_get_buffer_size
>> [PATCH v5 39/70] i965/vec4: Implement __intrinsic_store_ssbo
>> [PATCH v5 43/70] i965/vec4: Implement __intrinsic_load_ssbo
>> [PATCH v5 53/70] i965/vec4: Implement lowered SSBO atomic intrinsics
>>
>> I wrote the initial prototype of the SSBO functionality, but I don't
>> recall writing:
>>
>> [PATCH v5 45/70] glsl: atomic counters can be declared as buffer-qualified
>> variables
>>
>> I don't think I did anything for atomics in my patch. Feel free to
>> take ownership of that one and add my Reviewed-by.
>>
>
> OK, I will take the ownership.
Cool. With the update of patch 40, the entire series looks good to me:
Reviewed-by: Kristian Høgsberg <k...@bitplanet.net>
I think we should try to land this before the end of the week. With
Marks Jenkins run showing only an couple of issues that have now been
addressed, I don't see any reason to not merge this. We're early in
the release cycle and it's a good time to land this and give it some
exposure.
thanks,
Kristian
> Thanks for the review,
>
> Sam
>
>> thanks,
>> Kristian
>>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
