On 13 February 2013 21:11, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Kenneth Graunke writes:
>
> > On 02/13/2013 06:31 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> >> Kenneth Graunke writes:
> >>
> >>> Meta-instructions that implicitly write then read/consume a MRF value
> >>> don't pose write-after-write conflicts with each other, si
Kenneth Graunke writes:
> On 02/13/2013 06:31 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> Kenneth Graunke writes:
>>
>>> Meta-instructions that implicitly write then read/consume a MRF value
>>> don't pose write-after-write conflicts with each other, since they're
>>> actually:
>>>
>>> - Write value 1, then consu
On 02/13/2013 06:31 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
Kenneth Graunke writes:
Meta-instructions that implicitly write then read/consume a MRF value
don't pose write-after-write conflicts with each other, since they're
actually:
- Write value 1, then consume it.
- Write value 2, then consume it.
OK, he
Kenneth Graunke writes:
> Meta-instructions that implicitly write then read/consume a MRF value
> don't pose write-after-write conflicts with each other, since they're
> actually:
>
> - Write value 1, then consume it.
> - Write value 2, then consume it.
OK, here's the case I'm thinking of:
1: M
Meta-instructions that implicitly write then read/consume a MRF value
don't pose write-after-write conflicts with each other, since they're
actually:
- Write value 1, then consume it.
- Write value 2, then consume it.
These can safely be done in either order.
By tracking the last implicit write
