[Piglit] [PATCH 07/10] cl: Add test for negative index + small offset for private

[Jan Vesely]

On Thu, 2016-12-08 at 11:47 -0800, Matt Arsenault wrote:
> > On Dec 7, 2016, at 11:03, Jan Vesely <jan.vesely at rutgers.edu> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 11:05 -0800, Matt Arsenault wrote:
> > > > On Dec 6, 2016, at 11:04, Jan Vesely <jan.vesely at rutgers.edu> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 10:52 -0800, Matt Arsenault wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 5, 2016, at 12:42, Jan Vesely <jan.vesely at rutgers.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Mon, 2016-12-05 at 09:48 -0800, arsenm2 at gmail.com <mailto:arsenm2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > From: Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com>
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > .../execute/negative-private-base-pointer.cl       | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > 1 file changed, 120 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > create mode 100644 tests/cl/program/execute/negative-private-base-pointer.cl
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/cl/program/execute/negative-private-base-pointer.cl b/tests/cl/program/execute/negative-private-base-pointer.cl
> > > > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > > > index 0000000..7ee528b
> > > > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > > > +++ b/tests/cl/program/execute/negative-private-base-pointer.cl
> > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
> > > > > > > +/*!
> > > > > > > +[config]
> > > > > > > +name: negative private buffer base index
> > > > > > > +clc_version_min: 10
> > > > > > > +dimensions: 1
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +[test]
> > > > > > > +kernel_name: read_write_private_base_plus_offset
> > > > > > > +name: negative base private index
> > > > > > > +global_size: 1 0 0
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +arg_out: 0 buffer int[16]  \
> > > > > > > +  0xab       \
> > > > > > > +  0xbc       \
> > > > > > > +  0xabcd     \
> > > > > > > +  0xdead     \
> > > > > > > +             \
> > > > > > > +  0xcafe     \
> > > > > > > +  0xf00d     \
> > > > > > > +  0xababfeed \
> > > > > > > +  0xca00fe   \
> > > > > > > +             \
> > > > > > > +  0xb00feed  \
> > > > > > > +  0xca00fe   \
> > > > > > > +  0xfeedbeef \
> > > > > > > +  0xfe       \
> > > > > > > +             \
> > > > > > > +  0xbe00fe   \
> > > > > > > +  0xabcdef   \
> > > > > > > +  0xbeef     \
> > > > > > > +  0xde
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +arg_in: 1 buffer int[16] \
> > > > > > > +    -1 \
> > > > > > > +    -1 \
> > > > > > > +    -4 \
> > > > > > > +    -4 \
> > > > > > > +       \
> > > > > > > +    -3 \
> > > > > > > +    -4 \
> > > > > > > +    -2 \
> > > > > > > +  -115 \
> > > > > > > +       \
> > > > > > > +  -109 \
> > > > > > > + -1015 \
> > > > > > > + -1011 \
> > > > > > > + -1020 \
> > > > > > > +       \
> > > > > > > + -1014 \
> > > > > > > +  -137 \
> > > > > > > +  -151 \
> > > > > > > +   -40
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +!*/
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +#if 0
> > > > > > > +  0xab   \
> > > > > > > +  0xbc   \
> > > > > > > +  0xf00d \
> > > > > > > +  0xdead \
> > > > > > > +  0xcafe \
> > > > > > > +  0xabcd \
> > > > > > > +  0xababfeed \
> > > > > > > +  0xca00fe   \
> > > > > > > +  0xb00feed  \
> > > > > > > +  0xca00fe   \
> > > > > > > +  0xfeedbeef \
> > > > > > > +  0xfe       \
> > > > > > > +  0xbe00fe   \
> > > > > > > +  0xabcdef   \
> > > > > > > +  0xbeef     \
> > > > > > > +  0xde
> > > > > > > +#endif
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +kernel void read_write_private_base_plus_offset(global int* out, global int* in)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +    volatile int alloca[16];
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > does this need to be volatile?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > other than that:
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Jan Vesely <jan.vesely at rutgers.edu <mailto:jan.vesely at rutgers.edu>>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Jan
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes, otherwise the private memory access will be trivially optimized
> > > > > out defeating the point of the test
> > > > 
> > > > I don't get the trivial part. what would that be optimized to? the
> > > > indices are using values from input buffer (therefore unknown), so it
> > > > cannot directly match the constants to corresponding position in out
> > > > buffer.
> > > > 
> > > > Jan
> > > 
> > > This could be replaced with a series of selects or hit the move to LDS optimization 
> > 
> > right, thanks. I didn't consider move to LDS.
> > 
> > last question. what's the purpose of that #if 0 block?
> > 
> > Jan
> 
> 
> I think it was just other values I was going to test but then never finished them

can I drop the part?

Jan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/piglit/attachments/20161208/42c6ce28/attachment-0001.sig>