[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 2/6] i965/fs: Silence unused parameter warning

[Ian Romanick]

On 03/01/2015 05:19 PM, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> Not sure why you Cc'd me, but whatever.  Seems obvious enough.

Because b18fd23 was your commit.  Sometimes left over, unused parameters
are the result of a mistake.  I just wanted to be sure.

> Reviewed-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason.ekstrand at intel.com>
> On 02/27/2015 06:50 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
>> From: Ian Romanick <ian.d.romanick at intel.com>
>>
>> Unused since b18fd23.
>>
>> brw_fs.cpp:2878:44: warning: unused parameter 'dispatch_width'
>> [-Wunused-parameter]
>>   clear_deps_for_inst_src(fs_inst *inst, int dispatch_width, bool *deps,
>>                                              ^
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ian Romanick <ian.d.romanick at intel.com>
>> Cc: Jason Ekstrand <jason.ekstrand at intel.com>
>> ---
>>   src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp | 12 ++++--------
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp
>> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp
>> index 0354f56..126b7d0 100644
>> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp
>> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp
>> @@ -2875,8 +2875,7 @@ fs_visitor::remove_duplicate_mrf_writes()
>>   }
>>     static void
>> -clear_deps_for_inst_src(fs_inst *inst, int dispatch_width, bool *deps,
>> -                        int first_grf, int grf_len)
>> +clear_deps_for_inst_src(fs_inst *inst, bool *deps, int first_grf, int
>> grf_len)
>>   {
>>      /* Clear the flag for registers that actually got read (as
>> expected). */
>>      for (int i = 0; i < inst->sources; i++) {
>> @@ -2927,8 +2926,7 @@
>> fs_visitor::insert_gen4_pre_send_dependency_workarounds(bblock_t *block,
>>      memset(needs_dep, false, sizeof(needs_dep));
>>      memset(needs_dep, true, write_len);
>>   -   clear_deps_for_inst_src(inst, dispatch_width,
>> -                           needs_dep, first_write_grf, write_len);
>> +   clear_deps_for_inst_src(inst, needs_dep, first_write_grf, write_len);
>>        /* Walk backwards looking for writes to registers we're writing
>> which
>>       * aren't read since being written.  If we hit the start of the
>> program,
>> @@ -2968,8 +2966,7 @@
>> fs_visitor::insert_gen4_pre_send_dependency_workarounds(bblock_t *block,
>>         }
>>           /* Clear the flag for registers that actually got read (as
>> expected). */
>> -      clear_deps_for_inst_src(scan_inst, dispatch_width,
>> -                              needs_dep, first_write_grf, write_len);
>> +      clear_deps_for_inst_src(scan_inst, needs_dep, first_write_grf,
>> write_len);
>>           /* Continue the loop only if we haven't resolved all the
>> dependencies */
>>         int i;
>> @@ -3014,8 +3011,7 @@
>> fs_visitor::insert_gen4_post_send_dependency_workarounds(bblock_t
>> *block, fs_ins
>>         }
>>           /* Clear the flag for registers that actually got read (as
>> expected). */
>> -      clear_deps_for_inst_src(scan_inst, dispatch_width,
>> -                              needs_dep, first_write_grf, write_len);
>> +      clear_deps_for_inst_src(scan_inst, needs_dep, first_write_grf,
>> write_len);
>>           /* We insert our reads as late as possible since they're
>> reading the
>>          * result of a SEND, which has massive latency.