On 07/05/2016 12:57 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
This makes the code identical to the new code I added in suq handling?
If so, r-b. As a separate patch, I'd encourage a refactor of the logic.
Sure, this was my plan too.
On Jul 4, 2016 6:08 PM, "Samuel Pitoiset" mailto:samuel.pitoi...@gmail.com>
This makes the code identical to the new code I added in suq handling? If
so, r-b. As a separate patch, I'd encourage a refactor of the logic.
On Jul 4, 2016 6:08 PM, "Samuel Pitoiset" wrote:
> In presence of an indirect image access, the base offset should be
> zeroed because the stride will be
In presence of an indirect image access, the base offset should be
zeroed because the stride will be computed twice. This is a pretty
rare situation but it can happen when tex.r > 0.
Signed-off-by: Samuel Pitoiset
Cc: "11.2 12.0"
---
src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/codegen/nv50_ir_lowering_nvc0.cpp
