<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - ir_variable has maximum access out of bounds -- but it's not out of bounds" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109532#c9">Comment # 9</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - ir_variable has maximum access out of bounds -- but it's not out of bounds" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109532">bug 109532</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:andrey.simiklit@gmail.com" title="asimiklit <andrey.simiklit@gmail.com>"> asimiklit</a> <pre>(In reply to Ilia Mirkin from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=109532#c8">comment #8</a>) > (In reply to asimiklit from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=109532#c7">comment #7</a>) > > (In reply to Ilia Mirkin from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=109532#c2">comment #2</a>) > > > Looks like this is happening in link_uniform_blocks. The type gets updated: > > > > > > if (b->array != NULL && > > > (b->type->without_array()->interface_packing == > > > GLSL_INTERFACE_PACKING_PACKED)) { > > > b->type = resize_block_array(b->type, b->array); > > > b->var->type = b->type; > > > } > > > > > > But no change to the corresponding max_data_access. However doing the naive > > > thing here didn't help -- the shader fails. I didn't investigate why. I > > > think create_buffer_blocks also needs to be involved somehow. > > > > Thanks a lot your message was very helpful to find the start point of > > investigation. > > > > Looks like this thing is helped: > > > > --- > > src/compiler/glsl/link_uniform_blocks.cpp | 7 +++++++ > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/src/compiler/glsl/link_uniform_blocks.cpp > > b/src/compiler/glsl/link_uniform_blocks.cpp > > index 0b890586298..5197870a6d9 100644 > > --- a/src/compiler/glsl/link_uniform_blocks.cpp > > +++ b/src/compiler/glsl/link_uniform_blocks.cpp > > @@ -438,8 +438,15 @@ link_uniform_blocks(void *mem_ctx, > > if (b->array != NULL && > > (b->type->without_array()->interface_packing == > > GLSL_INTERFACE_PACKING_PACKED)) { > > + const int new_max_array_access = > > (int)(b->array->num_array_elements - 1); > > b->type = resize_block_array(b->type, b->array); > > b->var->type = b->type; > > + > > + assert(((int)b->array->array_elements[new_max_array_access] == > > + b->var->data.max_array_access || > > + b->var->data.max_array_access == -1) && "Is last index is > > proper"); > > + > > + b->var->data.max_array_access = new_max_array_access; > > } > > > > block_size.num_active_uniforms = 0; > > -- > > 2.17.1 > > > > Did you mean the same thing saying "naive thing" or this change helps? > > Well, as I recall the thing I tried was just saying max_array_access = 0 or > -1 unconditionally. It could also have been due to some secondary issue with > nouveau that this failed -- like I said, I didn't investigate. I'll have a > closer look tonight. Got it. > > You're basically setting > > b->var->data.max_array_access = b->type->length - 1 > > right? Yes. I guess that the optimized array size - 1 is a new max_array_access. But in case if optimization algorithm has some unexpected behavior and could left some unused elements in array I guess the search will be required: for (int i = 0; i < b->array->num_array_elements; i++) { if(b->var->data.max_array_access == b->array->array_elements[i]) { b->var->data.max_array_access = i; break; } }(In reply to Ilia Mirkin from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=109532#c8">comment #8</a>) > (In reply to asimiklit from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=109532#c7">comment #7</a>) > > (In reply to Ilia Mirkin from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=109532#c2">comment #2</a>) > > > Looks like this is happening in link_uniform_blocks. The type gets updated: > > > > > > if (b->array != NULL && > > > (b->type->without_array()->interface_packing == > > > GLSL_INTERFACE_PACKING_PACKED)) { > > > b->type = resize_block_array(b->type, b->array); > > > b->var->type = b->type; > > > } > > > > > > But no change to the corresponding max_data_access. However doing the naive > > > thing here didn't help -- the shader fails. I didn't investigate why. I > > > think create_buffer_blocks also needs to be involved somehow. > > > > Thanks a lot your message was very helpful to find the start point of > > investigation. > > > > Looks like this thing is helped: > > > > --- > > src/compiler/glsl/link_uniform_blocks.cpp | 7 +++++++ > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/src/compiler/glsl/link_uniform_blocks.cpp > > b/src/compiler/glsl/link_uniform_blocks.cpp > > index 0b890586298..5197870a6d9 100644 > > --- a/src/compiler/glsl/link_uniform_blocks.cpp > > +++ b/src/compiler/glsl/link_uniform_blocks.cpp > > @@ -438,8 +438,15 @@ link_uniform_blocks(void *mem_ctx, > > if (b->array != NULL && > > (b->type->without_array()->interface_packing == > > GLSL_INTERFACE_PACKING_PACKED)) { > > + const int new_max_array_access = > > (int)(b->array->num_array_elements - 1); > > b->type = resize_block_array(b->type, b->array); > > b->var->type = b->type; > > + > > + assert(((int)b->array->array_elements[new_max_array_access] == > > + b->var->data.max_array_access || > > + b->var->data.max_array_access == -1) && "Is last index is > > proper"); > > + > > + b->var->data.max_array_access = new_max_array_access; > > } > > > > block_size.num_active_uniforms = 0; > > -- > > 2.17.1 > > > > Did you mean the same thing saying "naive thing" or this change helps? > > Well, as I recall the thing I tried was just saying max_array_access = 0 or > -1 unconditionally. It could also have been due to some secondary issue with > nouveau that this failed -- like I said, I didn't investigate. I'll have a > closer look tonight. Got it. > > You're basically setting > > b->var->data.max_array_access = b->type->length - 1 > > right? Yes. I guess that the optimized array size - 1 is a new max_array_access. But in case if optimization algorithm has some "unexpected behavior" and could left some unused elements at the end of array for some reason I guess the some search may be required: for (int i = 0; i < b->array->num_array_elements; i++) { if(b->var->data.max_array_access == b->array->array_elements[i]) { b->var->data.max_array_access = i; break; } }</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>