From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bugzilla-daemon-CC+yJ3UmIYqDUpFQwHEjaQ@public.gmane.org Subject: [Bug 90887] PhiMovesPass in register allocator broken Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:39:01 +0000 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0242849323==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: nouveau-bounces-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org Sender: "Nouveau" To: nouveau-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org List-Id: nouveau.vger.kernel.org --===============0242849323== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1440189541.Be68133.32189"; charset="UTF-8" --1440189541.Be68133.32189 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:39:01 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90887 --- Comment #31 from Ilia Mirkin --- (In reply to jr from comment #30) > (In reply to Ilia Mirkin from comment #29) > > Hmmmm... maybe it was one of my local patches? I'll try to figure out what > > went wrong later tonight. > > > > I added logic to be clever about edge types... when splitting an edge, the > > type should remain except a forward edge becomes a cross edge. (You can do > > it out on paper...) Perhaps that upset things? It doesn't seem like codegen > > is using those terms in the usual MST meanings :( > > I did take a look at the edge classification. Cannot say I fully understand > the implications yet, but I'm wondering whether the logic in > Graph::classifyDFS is correct. Shouldn't the condition for FORWARD edge > whenn looping over incoming edges (the second loop) be reversed? It's definitely *not* correct. On the bright side, it's never used. I tried using it when I was implementing a SPIR -> NV50 IR converter, and it was a pile of fail. Unfortunately I didn't have time last night to investigate this. But I'll definitely get *some* fix into mesa 11. Sorry this has dragged on for so long. Really if I could understand wtf the needNewElseBlock logic was trying to do, and could construct a test shader to hit this in *regular* scenarios, not just the lowered output of TXL, that would make me a lot more comfortable with any approach that we pick. But really I'm just going to make it return true always, and play around with stuff. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. --1440189541.Be68133.32189 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:39:01 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"

Comment # 31 on bug 90887 from 
(In reply to jr from comment #30)
> (In reply to Ilia Mirkin from comment #29)
> > Hmmmm... maybe it was one of my local patches? I'll try to figure out what
> > went wrong later tonight.
> > 
> > I added logic to be clever about edge types... when splitting an edge, the
> > type should remain except a forward edge becomes a cross edge. (You can do
> > it out on paper...) Perhaps that upset things? It doesn't seem like codegen
> > is using those terms in the usual MST meanings :(
> 
> I did take a look at the edge classification. Cannot say I fully understand
> the implications yet, but I'm wondering whether the logic in
> Graph::classifyDFS is correct. Shouldn't the condition for FORWARD edge
> whenn looping over incoming edges (the second loop) be reversed?

It's definitely *not* correct. On the bright side, it's never used.

I tried using it when I was implementing a SPIR -> NV50 IR converter, and it
was a pile of fail.

Unfortunately I didn't have time last night to investigate this. But I'll
definitely get *some* fix into mesa 11. Sorry this has dragged on for so long.

Really if I could understand wtf the needNewElseBlock logic was trying to do,
and could construct a test shader to hit this in *regular* scenarios, not just
the lowered output of TXL, that would make me a lot more comfortable with any
approach that we pick.

But really I'm just going to make it return true always, and play around with
stuff.

You are receiving this mail because:
  • You are the QA Contact for the bug.
  • You are the assignee for the bug.
--1440189541.Be68133.32189-- --===============0242849323== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KTm91dmVhdSBt YWlsaW5nIGxpc3QKTm91dmVhdUBsaXN0cy5mcmVlZGVza3RvcC5vcmcKaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzLmZy ZWVkZXNrdG9wLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL25vdXZlYXUK --===============0242849323==--