search for: r219

...uot;nouveau_compiler -a e4" and then run "nvdisasm -b SM30" on it, but the output looks ok. There is a 8 byte sequence which does not get decoded every 64 bytes but AFAIK that is the scheduling info, so that should be fine. One thing which does stand out is that this: 0: ld u32 %r219 c0[0x0000000000000000+0x0] (0) 1: ld u32 %r222 c0[0x4] (0) 2: ld u64 { %r225 %r228 } c0[0x8] (0) 3: ld u32 %r234 c0[0x10] (0) Gets translated into (nvdisasm output) : /*0008*/ LDC R4, c[0x0][0x0]; /* 0x1400000003f11c86 */ /*00...

Also, where's the exit op? Perhaps what's happening is that you don't have an exit and it just goes off executing into the ether? On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote: > A few things that stand out: > > 0: ld u32 %r219 c0[0x0000000000000000+0x0] (0) > > wtf is that 0x0000000000000 thing doing there? Was it a %rX which got > constant-folded into 0? That indirectness should have then been > removed... that said, the final encoding looks fine. > > I believe that kepler has this launch descriptor th...

...there if > you find those easier to use then the > NV50_PROG_DEBUG=1 output. > > >> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> >> wrote: >>> >>> A few things that stand out: >>> >>> 0: ld u32 %r219 c0[0x0000000000000000+0x0] (0) >>> >>> wtf is that 0x0000000000000 thing doing there? Was it a %rX which got >>> constant-folded into 0? That indirectness should have then been >>> removed... that said, the final encoding looks fine. > > > I don't kn...

A few things that stand out: 0: ld u32 %r219 c0[0x0000000000000000+0x0] (0) wtf is that 0x0000000000000 thing doing there? Was it a %rX which got constant-folded into 0? That indirectness should have then been removed... that said, the final encoding looks fine. I believe that kepler has this launch descriptor thing too... is that being set...

.../nbody.disasm There are already .tgsi, .hex and .bin files there if you find those easier to use then the NV50_PROG_DEBUG=1 output. > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote: >> A few things that stand out: >> >> 0: ld u32 %r219 c0[0x0000000000000000+0x0] (0) >> >> wtf is that 0x0000000000000 thing doing there? Was it a %rX which got >> constant-folded into 0? That indirectness should have then been >> removed... that said, the final encoding looks fine. I don't know, maybe there is a hint in t...

...se then the >> NV50_PROG_DEBUG=1 output. >> >> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> A few things that stand out: >>>> >>>> 0: ld u32 %r219 c0[0x0000000000000000+0x0] (0) >>>> >>>> wtf is that 0x0000000000000 thing doing there? Was it a %rX which got >>>> constant-folded into 0? That indirectness should have then been >>>> removed... that said, the final encoding looks fine. >> >...

Anyone run a make on asterisk-addons /trunk r219 ? I error out on mp3 on a FC4 box, and I do not see anything obvious (to me) in the errors. make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/addons-trunk/format_mp3' gcc -pipe -fPIC -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -D_REENTRANT -D_GNU_SOURCE -O6 -c -o co...

...e then the >> NV50_PROG_DEBUG=1 output. >> >> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> A few things that stand out: >>>> >>>> 0: ld u32 %r219 c0[0x0000000000000000+0x0] (0) >>>> >>>> wtf is that 0x0000000000000 thing doing there? Was it a %rX which got >>>> constant-folded into 0? That indirectness should have then been >>>> removed... that said, the final encoding looks fine. >> >...

...9, R170, R171, R172, R173, R174, R175, R176, R177, R178, R179, R180, R181, R182, R183, R184, R185, R186, R187, R188, R189, R190, R191, R192, R193, R194, R195, R196, R197, R198, R199, R200, R201, R202, R203, R204, R205, R206, R207, R208, R209, R210, R211, R212, R213, R214, R215, R216, R217, R218, R219, R220, R221, R222, R223, R224, R225, R226, R227, R228, R229, R230, R231, R232, R233, R234, R235, R236, R237, R238, R239, R240, R241, R242, R243, R244, R245, R246, R247, R248, R249, R250, R251, R252, R253, R254, R255 ] , Uses = [ R0, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, R1...

Hi Micah, > In X86InstrInfo.td for Call Instructions, it mentions that Uses for > argument registers are added manually. Can someone point me to the > location where they are added as the comment doesn't reference a > where or how? the register uses are added by the function X86TargetLowering::LowerCall() during the DAG Lowering phase. This is the relevant code segment: // Add