| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
For loops which condition is false on the first iteration
iteration count was falsely calculated under the assumption
that loop's condition is true until it becomes false, meaning
it's true at least one time.
Now such loops are reported as having 0 iteration.
Similar to the fix e71fc7f2 done in NIR.
Fixes tests/shaders/glsl-fs-loop-while-false-02.shader_test
Signed-off-by: Danylo Piliaiev <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Timothy Arceri <[email protected]>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Incrementing the iteration count was intended to fix an off-by-one error
when the first terminator was superseded by a later terminator. If
there is no first terminator or later terminator, there is no off-by-one
error. Incrementing the loop count creates one. This can be seen in
loops like:
do {
if (something) {
// No breaks or continues here.
}
} while (false);
Reviewed-by: Timothy Arceri <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Abel Briggs <[email protected]>
Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110953
Fixes: 646621c66da ("glsl: make loop unrolling more like the nir unrolling path")
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Earlier commit enforced that we'll bail out if the number of terminators
is different than 2. With that in mind, the assert() will never trigger.
Fixes: 56b867395de ("glsl: fix infinite loop caused by bug in loop
unrolling pass")
Reviewed-by: Timothy Arceri <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <[email protected]>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Just checking for 2 jumps is not enough to be sure we can do a
complex loop unroll. We need to make sure we also have also found
2 loop terminators.
Without this we were attempting to unroll a loop where the second
jump was nested inside multiple ifs which loop analysis is unable
to detect as a terminator. We ended up splicing out the first
terminator but failed to actually unroll the loop, this resulted
in the creation of a possible infinite loop.
Fixes: 646621c66da9 "glsl: make loop unrolling more like the nir unrolling path"
Tested-by: Gert Wollny <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Ian Romanick <[email protected]>
Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105670
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The old code assumed that loop terminators will always be at
the start of the loop, resulting in otherwise unrollable
loops not being unrolled at all. For example the current
code would unroll:
int j = 0;
do {
if (j > 5)
break;
... do stuff ...
j++;
} while (j < 4);
But would fail to unroll the following as no iteration limit was
calculated because it failed to find the terminator:
int j = 0;
do {
... do stuff ...
j++;
} while (j < 4);
Also we would fail to unroll the following as we ended up
calculating the iteration limit as 6 rather than 4. The unroll
code then assumed we had 3 terminators rather the 2 as it
wasn't able to determine that "if (j > 5)" was redundant.
int j = 0;
do {
if (j > 5)
break;
... do stuff ...
if (bool(i))
break;
j++;
} while (j < 4);
This patch changes this pass to be more like the NIR unrolling pass.
With this change we handle loop terminators correctly and also
handle cases where the terminators have instructions in their
branches other than a break.
V2:
- fixed regression where loops with a break in else were never
unrolled in v1.
- fixed confusing/wrong naming of bools in complex unrolling.
Reviewed-by: Nicolai Hähnle <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Dieter Nützel <[email protected]>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
These instructions will be executed on every iteration of the loop
we cannot drop them.
V2:
- move removal of unreachable terminators from the terminator list
to the same place they are removed from the IR as suggested by
Nicolai.
Reviewed-by: Nicolai Hähnle <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Dieter Nützel <[email protected]>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Having this separate just makes the code harder to follow, and
requires an extra walk of the IR.
Reviewed-by: Thomas Helland <[email protected]>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The main motivation for this is that threaded compilation can fall
over if we were to allocate IR inside constant_expression_value()
when calling it on a builtin. This is because builtins are shared
across the whole OpenGL context.
f81ede469910d worked around the problem by cloning the entire
builtin before constant_expression_value() could be called on
it. However cloning the whole function each time we referenced
it lead to a significant reduction in the GLSL IR compiler
performance. This change along with the following patch
helps fix that performance regression.
Other advantages are that we reduce the number of calls to
ralloc_parent(), and for loop unrolling we free constants after
they are used rather than leaving them hanging around.
Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke <[email protected]>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously loops like
do {
// ...
} while (false);
that did not have any other loop-branch instructions would not be
unrolled. This is commonly used to wrap multiline preprocessor macros.
This produces IR like
(loop (
...
break
))
Since limiting_terminator was NULL, the loop unroller would
throw up its hands and say, "I don't know how many iterations. How
can I unroll this?"
We can detect this another way. If there is no limiting_terminator
and the only loop-branch is a break as the last IR, there's only one
iteration.
On my very old checkout of shader-db, this removes a loop from Orbital
Explorer, but it does not otherwise affect the shader. The loop removed
is the one the compiler inserts surrounding the switch statement.
This change does prevent some seriously bad code generation in some
patches to meta shaders that I recently sent out for review.
Signed-off-by: Ian Romanick <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Timothy Arceri <[email protected]>
|
|
|
Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Matt Turner <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Jose Fonseca <[email protected]>
|
