similar to: [Bug 101371] New: GlobalCSE Pass moves phi instructions

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111218 Bug ID: 111218 Summary: Segmentation fault in nv50_ir::NVC0LegalizeSSA::handleDIV when dividing result of textureSize Product: Mesa Version: 19.0 Hardware: x86-64 (AMD64) OS: Linux (All) Status: NEW Severity: major

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111167 Bug ID: 111167 Summary: Dividing zero by a uniform in loop header causes segfault in nv50_ir::NVC0LegalizeSSA::handleDIV Product: Mesa Version: git Hardware: x86-64 (AMD64) OS: Linux (All) Status: NEW Severity: minor

Well, if you remove that assert locally, all compute tests in src/gallium/tests/trivial/compute.c pass on GK106, except the atomic ones. I'm working on the fermi case btw. On 11/25/2015 03:43 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 20-11-15 17:07, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: >> >> >> On 11/20/2015 11:36 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> Hi Samual, et al, >>

On 11/26/2015 01:21 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 26-11-15 09:42, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: >> Well, if you remove that assert locally, all compute tests in >> src/gallium/tests/trivial/compute.c pass on GK106, except the atomic >> ones. > > Do you mean the: > > Assertion `pres->target != PIPE_BUFFER' failed. > > or the: > >

On 11/25/2015 03:43 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 20-11-15 17:07, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: >> >> >> On 11/20/2015 11:36 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> Hi Samual, et al, >> >> Hi Hans, >> >>> >>> In >>>

Hi, On 26-11-15 09:42, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: > Well, if you remove that assert locally, all compute tests in src/gallium/tests/trivial/compute.c pass on GK106, except the atomic ones. Do you mean the: Assertion `pres->target != PIPE_BUFFER' failed. or the: Assertion `tex->defExists(0) && tex->srcExists(0)' failed. assert? Or is the first one not present for

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111217 Bug ID: 111217 Summary: compilation of vdpau shaders crashes in handleCVT_CVT Product: Mesa Version: unspecified Hardware: Other OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Drivers/DRI/nouveau Assignee:

Hi, On 20-11-15 17:07, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: > > > On 11/20/2015 11:36 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi Samual, et al, > > Hi Hans, > >> >> In >> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/commit/src/gallium/drivers/nouveau?id=ff72440b40211326eda118232fabd53965410afd >> >> you write: "This compute support has been tested by >> Pierre

The set of variable defs does not need to be ordered in any way, and removing/adding elements is a fairly common operation in various optimization passes. This shortens runtime of piglit test fp-long-alu to ~11s from ~22s No piglit regressions observed on nvc0! Signed-off-by: Tobias Klausmann <tobias.johannes.klausmann at mni.thm.de> --- src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/codegen/nv50_ir.cpp

In certain circumstances, findFirstUses could end up doubling back on instructions it had already processed, resulting in an infinite recursion. Avoid this by keeping track of already-visited instructions. Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83079 Tested-by: Tobias Klausmann <tobias.johannes.klausmann at mni.thm.de> Signed-off-by: Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108032 Bug ID: 108032 Summary: nv50_ir_lowering_gm107.cpp:326: undefined reference to `nv50_ir::NVC0LoweringPass::loadMsAdjInfo32(nv50_ir::T exInstruction::Target, unsigned int, int, nv50_ir::Value*, bool)' Product: Mesa Version: git

Hi Samual, et al, In http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/commit/src/gallium/drivers/nouveau?id=ff72440b40211326eda118232fabd53965410afd you write: "This compute support has been tested by Pierre Moreau and myself with some compute kernels." Can you provide testing instructions (and the necessary files) so that I can try to reproduce your tests ? And once I've reproduced your

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106391 Bug ID: 106391 Summary: Noveau fails to compile when using meson and LLVM without RTTI Product: Mesa Version: unspecified Hardware: Other OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component:

The “Program” class keeps a pointer to the “nv50_ir_prog_info” structure, so you could just use that in the “Program::print()” function, rather than passing the flag as an argument to “print”. Pierre On 2017-11-17 — 17:21, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > This comes in handy when checking "NV50_PROG_DEBUG=1" outputs with diff! > > V2: > - Use environmental variable (Karol

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

I think it is better to put this behind an environmental variable, because that way it can also be used without having to dump the TGSI first and I don't see a good reason why not to. On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Tobias Klausmann <tobias.johannes.klausmann at mni.thm.de> wrote: > This comes in handy when checking "NV50_PROG_DEBUG=1" outputs with diff! > >

Hi Christoph, bin/shader_runner tests/spec/glsl-1.40/uniform_buffer/fs-struct-copy-complicated.shader_test -auto bin/shader_runner tests/spec/glsl-1.40/uniform_buffer/vs-struct-copy-complicated.shader_test -auto bin/shader_runner tests/spec/glsl-1.50/uniform_buffer/gs-struct-copy-complicated.shader_test -auto Now all segfault. I reverted 2e9ee44797 ("nv50/ir/ra: some register spilling

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 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

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: >