similar to: [PATCH mesa 1/6] tgsi_build: Fix return of uninitialized memory in tgsi_*_instruction_memory

Could you please get rid of the cosmetic changes (eg. the switch ones)? Because this doesn't really improve readability and in my opinion these changes should be eventually done in a separate patch. Other than that, this patch is : Reviewed-by: Samuel Pitoiset <samuel.pitoiset at gmail.com> Yes, this probably won't work as is for atomic operations but the lowering pass is

This approach leads to the emitters needing to know about both global and buffer, even though at that point, they are identical. I was thinking that in the lowering logic, buffer would just get rewritten as global (with the offset added), thus not needing any change to the emitters. What do you think about such an approach? On Mar 16, 2016 2:24 AM, "Hans de Goede" <hdegoede at

Some of the lowering steps we currently do for FILE_MEMORY_GLOBAL only apply to buffers, making it impossible to use FILE_MEMORY_GLOBAL for OpenCL global buffers. This commits changes the buffer code to use FILE_MEMORY_BUFFER at the ir_from_tgsi and lowering steps, freeing use of FILE_MEMORY_GLOBAL for use with OpenCL global buffers. Note that after lowering buffer accesses use the

Hi, On 23-03-16 23:10, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: > Are you sure this won't break compute shaders on fermi? > Could you please double-check that? I just checked: lspci: 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: NVIDIA Corporation GF119 [GeForce GT 610] (rev a1) Before this patch-set: [hans at plank piglit]$ ./piglit run -o shader -t '.*arb_shader_storage_buffer_object.*' results/shader

Hi, On 08-04-16 18:14, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: > > > On 04/08/2016 12:17 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 23-03-16 23:10, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: >>> Are you sure this won't break compute shaders on fermi? >>> Could you please double-check that? >> >> I just checked: >> >> lspci: >> 01:00.0 VGA compatible

This little "hack" fixes the use of OpenCL global memory buffers with nouveau, but clearly the #if 0 is not a solution as it breaks buffers with GLSL. The reason I'm posting this as an RFC patch is to discuss how to solve this properly, 2 solutions come to mind: 1) Use separate nv50_ir::FILE_MEMORY_xxx values for buffers versus TGSI_FILE_MEMORY with TGSI_MEMORY_TYPE_GLOBAL,

Add support for OpenCL global memory buffers, note this has only been tested with regular load and stores and likely needs more work for e.g. atomic ops. Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com> --- src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/codegen/nv50_ir.h | 1 + .../drivers/nouveau/codegen/nv50_ir_emit_gk110.cpp | 31 +++++++++++++++++-----

FILE_MEMORY_GLOBAL is currently only used for buffer handling, as we do not yet have (opencl) global memory support. Global memory support actually requires some different handling during lowering, so rename FILE_MEMORY_GLOBAL to FILE_MEMORY_BUFFER to reflect that the current code is for buffer handling, this will allow the later (re-)addition of FILE_MEMORY_GLOBAL for regular global memory.

Hi, On 16-03-16 11:37, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: > Could you please get rid of the cosmetic changes (eg. the switch ones)? > Because this doesn't really improve readability and in my opinion these changes should be eventually done in a separate patch. I need at least halve of those cosmetic changes, because half of them is not cosmetic, e.g. : - case FILE_MEMORY_BUFFER: code[1] =

Hi, On 16-03-16 15:55, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > This approach leads to the emitters needing to know about both global and > buffer, even though at that point, they are identical. I was thinking that > in the lowering logic, buffer would just get rewritten as global (with the > offset added), thus not needing any change to the emitters. What do you > think about such an approach? I was

Hi, On 14-03-16 16:05, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > There's a less hacky and more hacky way forward. The more hacky solution is > to set file index to -1 or something and then not do the lowering when you > see that. > > The less hacky solution is the one you proposed as #1 - introduce a new > file for "buffer" memory and lower it to the global file by adding a base >

Hi, On 14-03-16 16:41, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: > > > On 03/14/2016 04:28 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 14-03-16 16:05, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >>> There's a less hacky and more hacky way forward. The more hacky >>> solution is >>> to set file index to -1 or something and then not do the lowering when >>> you >>> see

Are you sure this won't break compute shaders on fermi? Could you please double-check that? One minor comment below. On 03/17/2016 05:07 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Some of the lowering steps we currently do for FILE_MEMORY_GLOBAL only > apply to buffers, making it impossible to use FILE_MEMORY_GLOBAL for > OpenCL global buffers. > > This commits changes the buffer code to use

On 04/08/2016 12:17 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 23-03-16 23:10, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: >> Are you sure this won't break compute shaders on fermi? >> Could you please double-check that? > > I just checked: > > lspci: > 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: NVIDIA Corporation GF119 [GeForce GT > 610] (rev a1) > > Before this patch-set: >

On 04/12/2016 12:04 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 08-04-16 18:14, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: >> >> >> On 04/08/2016 12:17 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 23-03-16 23:10, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: >>>> Are you sure this won't break compute shaders on fermi? >>>> Could you please double-check that?

There's a less hacky and more hacky way forward. The more hacky solution is to set file index to -1 or something and then not do the lowering when you see that. The less hacky solution is the one you proposed as #1 - introduce a new file for "buffer" memory and lower it to the global file by adding a base offset. Right now the meaning of global is overloaded - before lowering it

On 03/14/2016 04:28 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 14-03-16 16:05, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> There's a less hacky and more hacky way forward. The more hacky >> solution is >> to set file index to -1 or something and then not do the lowering when >> you >> see that. >> >> The less hacky solution is the one you proposed as #1 - introduce a

On 03/14/2016 08:50 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 14-03-16 16:41, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: >> >> >> On 03/14/2016 04:28 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 14-03-16 16:05, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >>>> There's a less hacky and more hacky way forward. The more hacky >>>> solution is >>>> to set

On 8 July 2015 at 19:27, Tobias Klausmann <tobias.johannes.klausmann at mni.thm.de> wrote: > codegen/nv50_ir_emit_nv50.cpp: In member function > ‘void nv50_ir::CodeEmitterNV50::emitLOAD(const nv50_ir::Instruction*)’: > codegen/nv50_ir_emit_nv50.cpp:620:12: warning: unused variable ‘offset’ > [-Wunused-variable] > int32_t offset = i->getSrc(0)->reg.data.offset; >

nouveau_compiler.c: In function ‘main’: nouveau_compiler.c:216:27: warning: ‘code’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] printf("%08x ", code[i / 4]); ^ nouveau_compiler.c:215:4: warning: ‘size’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] for (i = 0; i < size; i += 4) { Signed-off-by: Tobias