[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 2/2] i965/cfg: Remove if_block/else_block.

[Jason Ekstrand]

Two questions: Does it fix the bug? And did you ever figure out what was
going on there?
On Nov 11, 2014 6:58 AM, "Jason Ekstrand" <jason at jlekstrand.net> wrote:

> Both patches are Reviewed-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason.ekstrand at intel.com>
> On Nov 10, 2014 11:37 PM, "Matt Turner" <mattst88 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I used these in the SEL peephole, but they require extra tracking and
>> fix ups. The SEL peephole can pretty easily find the blocks it needs
>> without these.
>> ---
>>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_cfg.cpp               | 15 +--------------
>>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_cfg.h                 |  8 --------
>>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_dead_control_flow.cpp |  8 --------
>>  3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 30 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_cfg.cpp
>> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_cfg.cpp
>> index bb49a0a..02149e2 100644
>> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_cfg.cpp
>> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_cfg.cpp
>> @@ -51,8 +51,7 @@ link(void *mem_ctx, bblock_t *block)
>>  }
>>
>>  bblock_t::bblock_t(cfg_t *cfg) :
>> -   cfg(cfg), start_ip(0), end_ip(0), num(0),
>> -   if_block(NULL), else_block(NULL)
>> +   cfg(cfg), start_ip(0), end_ip(0), num(0)
>>  {
>>     instructions.make_empty();
>>     parents.make_empty();
>> @@ -136,7 +135,6 @@ bblock_t::combine_with(bblock_t *that)
>>     }
>>
>>     this->end_ip = that->end_ip;
>> -   this->else_block = that->else_block;
>>     this->instructions.append_list(&that->instructions);
>>
>>     this->cfg->remove_block(that);
>> @@ -238,17 +236,6 @@ cfg_t::cfg_t(exec_list *instructions)
>>           assert(cur_if->end()->opcode == BRW_OPCODE_IF);
>>           assert(!cur_else || cur_else->end()->opcode == BRW_OPCODE_ELSE);
>>
>> -         cur_if->if_block = cur_if;
>> -         cur_if->else_block = cur_else;
>> -
>> -        if (cur_else) {
>> -            cur_else->if_block = cur_if;
>> -            cur_else->else_block = cur_else;
>> -         }
>> -
>> -         cur->if_block = cur_if;
>> -         cur->else_block = cur_else;
>> -
>>          /* Pop the stack so we're in the previous if/else/endif */
>>          cur_if = pop_stack(&if_stack);
>>          cur_else = pop_stack(&else_stack);
>> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_cfg.h
>> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_cfg.h
>> index 388d29e..48bca9f 100644
>> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_cfg.h
>> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_cfg.h
>> @@ -89,14 +89,6 @@ struct bblock_t {
>>     struct exec_list parents;
>>     struct exec_list children;
>>     int num;
>> -
>> -   /* If the current basic block ends in an IF or ELSE instruction,
>> these will
>> -    * point to the basic blocks containing the other associated
>> instruction.
>> -    *
>> -    * Otherwise they are NULL.
>> -    */
>> -   struct bblock_t *if_block;
>> -   struct bblock_t *else_block;
>>  };
>>
>>  static inline struct backend_instruction *
>> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_dead_control_flow.cpp
>> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_dead_control_flow.cpp
>> index 4c9d7b9..03f838d 100644
>> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_dead_control_flow.cpp
>> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_dead_control_flow.cpp
>> @@ -85,7 +85,6 @@ dead_control_flow_eliminate(backend_visitor *v)
>>           }
>>
>>           if (else_inst) {
>> -            else_block->if_block->else_block = NULL;
>>              else_inst->remove(else_block);
>>           }
>>
>> @@ -102,13 +101,6 @@ dead_control_flow_eliminate(backend_visitor *v)
>>           if (earlier_block &&
>> earlier_block->can_combine_with(later_block)) {
>>              earlier_block->combine_with(later_block);
>>
>> -            foreach_block (block, v->cfg) {
>> -               if (block->if_block == later_block)
>> -                  block->if_block = earlier_block;
>> -               if (block->else_block == later_block)
>> -                  block->else_block = earlier_block;
>> -            }
>> -
>>              /* If ENDIF was in its own block, then we've now deleted it
>> and
>>               * merged the two surrounding blocks, the latter of which the
>>               * __next block pointer was pointing to.
>> --
>> 2.0.4
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20141111/c706d675/attachment.html>