On 06/28/2011 09:12 AM, Paul Berry wrote:
On 27 June 2011 17:35, Keith Packard wrote:
I'd write the simplest possible code that works now and then consider
optimizing it later. This has the advantage that you can get a bunch of
tests working and then use those to validate a later, more complica
On 27 June 2011 17:35, Keith Packard wrote:
> I'd write the simplest possible code that works now and then consider
> optimizing it later. This has the advantage that you can get a bunch of
> tests working and then use those to validate a later, more complicated,
> implementation.
I heartily supp
On 06/27/2011 05:35 PM, Keith Packard wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:23:30 -0700, Dan McCabe wrote:
Since I am just about to start modifying the IR generation, I'm open to
suggestion.
I'd write the simplest possible code that works now and then consider
optimizing it later. This has the advant
On 06/27/2011 04:40 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
Here's another case that I'm not sure you're handling
correctly...conditional breaks:
switch (expr) {
case c0:
case c1:
stmt0;
case c2:
case c3:
stmt1;
break;
case c4:
stmt2;
if (foo)
break;
stmt3;// happens
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:23:30 -0700, Dan McCabe wrote:
> Since I am just about to start modifying the IR generation, I'm open to
> suggestion.
I'd write the simplest possible code that works now and then consider
optimizing it later. This has the advantage that you can get a bunch of
tests worki
On 06/27/2011 05:15 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
On 06/24/2011 05:11 PM, Dan McCabe wrote:
Looking at a translation of my canonical example:
switch (expr) {
case c0:
case c1:
stmt0;
case c2:
case c3:
stmt1;
break;
case c4:
default:
stmt2;
}
We can
On 06/24/2011 05:11 PM, Dan McCabe wrote:
Looking at a translation of my canonical example:
switch (expr) {
case c0:
case c1:
stmt0;
case c2:
case c3:
stmt1;
break;
case c4:
default:
stmt2;
}
We can translated this into:
int test_val_tmp = ex
Here's another case that I'm not sure you're handling
correctly...conditional breaks:
switch (expr) {
case c0:
case c1:
stmt0;
case c2:
case c3:
stmt1;
break;
case c4:
stmt2;
if (foo)
break;
stmt3;// happens if !foo
case c5:
default:
stmt4;// h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/24/2011 05:11 PM, Dan McCabe wrote:
> On 06/24/2011 01:17 PM, Dan McCabe wrote:
>> On 06/20/2011 03:50 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 06/17/2011 05:43 PM, Dan McCabe wrote:
Beware! He
On 06/24/2011 01:17 PM, Dan McCabe wrote:
On 06/20/2011 03:50 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/17/2011 05:43 PM, Dan McCabe wrote:
Beware! Here be dragons!
I think this will generate the wrong code for:
for (i = 0; i< 10; i++) {
switc
On 06/20/2011 03:50 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/17/2011 05:43 PM, Dan McCabe wrote:
Beware! Here be dragons!
I think this will generate the wrong code for:
for (i = 0; i< 10; i++) {
switch (i) {
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/17/2011 05:43 PM, Dan McCabe wrote:
> Beware! Here be dragons!
>
> Up until now modyfing the GLSL compiler has been pretty straightforward.
> This is where things get interesting.
>
> Switch statement processing leverages infrastructure that wa
Beware! Here be dragons!
Up until now modyfing the GLSL compiler has been pretty straightforward.
This is where things get interesting.
Switch statement processing leverages infrastructure that was previously
created (specifically for break statements, which are encountered in both
loops and swit
13 matches
Mail list logo
