[Mesa-dev] [PATCH v5 00/70] ARB_shader_storage_buffer_object (mesa, i965)

[Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez]

On 19/09/15 01:56, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:35:16PM +0200, Iago Toral Quiroga wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> this is the latest version of the ARB_shader_storage_buffer_object
>> implementation. A good part of the frontend bits for this are already in
>> master, but this adds some more missing pieces, specifically std430 and
>> memory qualifiers. Additionally, this provides the i965 implementation.
> 
> I've gone through all patches in the series and I replied to patches
> where I had comments.  Overall, the series look good and with the
> comments addressed, I'm ready to give my Reviewed-by for the series.
> I want to take a closer look at the atomics lowering in patches 49+,
> but I'm done for today.  Base on the quick look-through I did, I don't
> expect to find any showstoppers there.
> 
> Here's a summary of what I found:
> 
> [PATCH v5 01/70] mesa: set MAX_SHADER_STORAGE_BUFFERS to 15.
> 
>   Update limit to 16 and drop the comment
> 
> [PATCH v5 02/70] i965: Use 16-byte offset alignment for shader storage buffers
> 
>   ctx->Const.ShaderStorageBufferOffsetAlignment should be 64
> 
> [PATCH v5 23/70] glsl: refactor parser processing of an interface block definition
> 
>   Clarify that the commit is just moving code.
> 
> [PATCH v5 26/70] glsl: Add parser/compiler support for std430 interface packing qualifier
> 
>   Update the error to also mention shader storage blocks, not just ubos?
> 
> [PATCH v5 28/70] glsl: add std430 interface packing support to ssbo related operations
> 
>   Why are we passing false for is_std430 here (emit_access in
>   handle_rvalue)?  We use handle_rvalue for both UBO and SSBO loads,
>   right?  Also, for consistency, I'd prefer if we could just pass
>   'packing' around instead of is_std430.
> 
> [PATCH v5 29/70] glsl: a shader storage buffer must be smaller than the maximum size allowed
> 
>   Two chunks look like they should be their own patch ("Add unsized
>   array support to glsl_type::std140_size" or such).
> 
> [PATCH v5 38/70] i965/nir/vec4: Implement nir_intrinsic_store_ssbo
> 
>   Shouldn't this be 'skipped_channels += num_channels;' to handle write mask reg.yw?
> 
> [PATCH v5 40/70] nir: Implement __intrinsic_load_ssbo
> 
>   Refactor handling of cmp instruction for converting to bool
> 
> [PATCH v5 54/70] glsl: First argument to atomic functions must be a buffer variable
> 
>   Nitpick: move check that only looks at first element in list to after loop
> 
> Also, I expect that before we land this series (thought that shouldn't
> be far off), we'll have deleted the vec4 GLSL IR visitor so we can
> drop these patches (I didn't review them):
> 
> [PATCH v5 16/70] i965/vec4: Implement ir_unop_get_buffer_size
> [PATCH v5 39/70] i965/vec4: Implement __intrinsic_store_ssbo
> [PATCH v5 43/70] i965/vec4: Implement __intrinsic_load_ssbo
> [PATCH v5 53/70] i965/vec4: Implement lowered SSBO atomic intrinsics
> 
> I wrote the initial prototype of the SSBO functionality, but I don't
> recall writing:
> 
> [PATCH v5 45/70] glsl: atomic counters can be declared as buffer-qualified variables
> 
> I don't think I did anything for atomics in my patch. Feel free to
> take ownership of that one and add my Reviewed-by.
> 

OK, I will take the ownership.

Thanks for the review,

Sam

> thanks,
> Kristian
>