[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] r600g: don't reserve more stack space than required v4

[Vincent Lejeune]

Btw where can I find some more info on stack_size ?
I assumed it should represent the amout of max stacked exec_mask,
but it looks like it is possible to have much more "manually" pushed exec_mask level
than reported by nstack (iiuc a push count as much as a 1/4 of a loop level).




----- Mail original -----
> De : Vadim Girlin <vadimgirlin at gmail.com>
> À : Vincent Lejeune <vljn at ovi.com>
> Cc : Alex Deucher <alexdeucher at gmail.com>; "mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org" <mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org>
> Envoyé le : Dimanche 31 mars 2013 22h34
> Objet : Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] r600g: don't reserve more stack space than required v4
> 
> On 04/01/2013 12:00 AM, Vincent Lejeune wrote:
>>  Hi Vadim,
>> 
>>  Does this patch work ? (It's still not pushed)
> 
> It works for me on evergreen, but I'm not sure about other chip generations. 
> I wanted to ask somebody to test it, but the problem is that the piglit coverage 
> for this is not enough (e.g. initial version of this patch had no regressions 
> with piglit but resulted in artifacts with Heaven). I thought about adding more 
> control flow tests but haven't written them yet. The same algorithm 
> seemingly works in my r600-sb branch with other chips, but the test coverage 
> with that branch is even lower due to the if-conversion that eliminates most of 
> the conditional control flow.
> 
> I usually prefer not to push any patches until I'm sure that they are not 
> breaking anything. But well, possibly in this case it's easier to simply 
> push it and wait for the bug reports. I think I'll check if it needs 
> rebasing and push it in a day or two if there are no objections.
> 
> Vadim
> 
>>  I'm working on doing native control flow for llvm and intend to port 
> your patch on the control flow reservation.
>> 
>>  Vincent
>