On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 20 October 2015 at 05:08, Matt Turner wrote:
>> Otherwise we'd emit a MOV from the null register (which isn't allowed).
>>
> Would you say it's a good idea to push the check down to the MOV()
> implementation ? If not perhaps we should add
On 20 October 2015 at 05:08, Matt Turner wrote:
> Otherwise we'd emit a MOV from the null register (which isn't allowed).
>
Would you say it's a good idea to push the check down to the MOV()
implementation ? If not perhaps we should add an assert() to easily
catch cases like these in the future ?
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Iago Toral wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 21:08 -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
>> Otherwise we'd emit a MOV from the null register (which isn't allowed).
>>
>> Helps 24 programs in shader-db (the geometry shaders in GSCloth):
>>
>> instructions in affected programs:
On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 21:08 -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
> Otherwise we'd emit a MOV from the null register (which isn't allowed).
>
> Helps 24 programs in shader-db (the geometry shaders in GSCloth):
>
> instructions in affected programs: 302 -> 262 (-13.25%)
Makes sense to me,
Reviewed-by: I
Otherwise we'd emit a MOV from the null register (which isn't allowed).
Helps 24 programs in shader-db (the geometry shaders in GSCloth):
instructions in affected programs: 302 -> 262 (-13.25%)
---
src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_visitor.cpp| 18 +-
src/mesa/drivers/dr