[Mesa-dev] [PATCH v4 (part2) 15/59] i965/vec4: Implement unsized array's length calculation

[Jordan Justen]

On 2015-08-27 23:07:26, Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez wrote:
> 
> On 28/08/15 08:06, Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez wrote:
> > 
> > On 28/08/15 02:21, Jordan Justen wrote:
> >> On 2015-08-05 01:30:12, Iago Toral Quiroga wrote:
> >>> From: Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez <siglesias at igalia.com>
> >>>
> >>> Notice that Skylake needs to include a header in the sampler message
> >>> so it will need some tweaks to work there.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez <siglesias at igalia.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_defines.h          |  3 ++
> >>>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_shader.cpp         |  3 ++
> >>>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4.cpp           |  1 +
> >>>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4.h             |  6 ++++
> >>>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_generator.cpp | 31 ++++++++++++++++
> >>
> >>>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_visitor.cpp   | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >>
> >> Shouldn't this be in brw_vec4_nir.cpp instead?
> >>
> > 
> > I wrote this patch before vec4 NIR backend was upstreamed. I have a
> > separate patch that adds a similar code to vec4 nir backend.

Did this make it into v4?

> > Or do you suggest to delete this patch?
> > 
> 
> I mean: delete brw_vec4_visitor.cpp changes from this patch and add
> brw_vec4_nir.cpp changes to it.

I think the nir path is the priority. I skimmed the series a bit and
it didn't seem like this array length part was enabled on the nir
path.

I don't think there's a need to enable the non-nir path. But, if you
somehow find it useful for debugging, then you can leave the non-nir
path.

I think that going forward we should only implement new features on
the nir path, and I assume sometime before the next release branch
we'll delete the non-nir vec4 path. (That's how it happened with the
scalar side anyway.)

-Jordan