On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:59 AM, Neil Roberts wrote:
> Matt Turner writes:
>
>> I don't know why I was confused by this patch -- after arriving at the
>> same conclusion independently I see that all of the analysis I needed
>> was right there.
>
> Yes sorry, I probably didn't explain it very well.
Matt Turner writes:
> I don't know why I was confused by this patch -- after arriving at the
> same conclusion independently I see that all of the analysis I needed
> was right there.
Yes sorry, I probably didn't explain it very well. Your explanation is a
lot clearer.
> To sum up, vec4_visitor
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Neil Roberts wrote:
> Previously when setting up the sample instruction for an indirect
> sampler the vec4 backend was directly passing the pseudo opcode's
> src0. However this isn't actually set to a valid register because
> instead the MRF registers are used as
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Neil Roberts wrote:
> Previously when setting up the sample instruction for an indirect
> sampler the vec4 backend was directly passing the pseudo opcode's
> src0. However this isn't actually set to a valid register because
> instead the MRF registers are used as
Previously when setting up the sample instruction for an indirect
sampler the vec4 backend was directly passing the pseudo opcode's
src0. However this isn't actually set to a valid register because
instead the MRF registers are used as the source so it would end up
passing null as src0.
This patch
