R600 Patches (Plus one for SI): Various fixes to get the piglit all_cl tests to stop hanging

[Tom Stellard]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 06:47:49AM -0700, Vincent Lejeune wrote:
> I modified your patch adding the isFetch bit, and I have another one that could be used instead of the NOP patch.
>

I can't get my mail client to inline your NOP patch, but I have two
comments:

1. I think you should rename NOP_eg and NOP_r600 to CF_END_eg and
CF_END_r600 and also rename CF_END to CF_END_cm.  On pre-cayman, a NOP
with the EOP bit is essentially the same as a CF_END, so I think it
would be good to use consistent naming.  Also, it would be a good idea
to add an EOP target flag to these instructions.

2. You may be able to match the IL_retflag node and generate a CF_END_*
instruction directly from the instruction selector instead of lowering
the return later on.

-Tom

> With them, I can emit native VTX/TEX clauses which should solve the bug with MaxFetchInst with no regression,
> but I still need to work things to have prettier asm output and also fix lit test.
> 
> Vincent
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> > De : Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net>
> > À : Alex Deucher <alexdeucher at gmail.com>
> > Cc : llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> > Envoyé le : Vendredi 12 avril 2013 23h25
> > Objet : Re: R600 Patches (Plus one for SI): Various fixes to get the piglit
> 	all_cl tests to stop hanging
> > 
> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 05:11:25PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> >>  On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> 
> > wrote:
> >>  > Hi,
> >>  >
> >>  > Attached are several patches to get the piglit test suite to complete 
> > a
> >>  > full run with all_cl.tests without locking up on my Juniper.
> >>  >
> >>  > Please Review.
> >> 
> >>  > From ca217819c518e4de2f2dcc3e9044ccb2375b1474 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >>  > From: Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard at amd.com>
> >>  > Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:53:58 -0400
> >>  > Subject: [PATCH 4/8] R600: Emit RETURN instructions as a NOP with End 
> > of Program bit set
> >> 
> >>  Will this cause problems on vliw4 (cayman/tn) hardware?
> >> 
> > 
> > Yes, I forgot about this. I will fix it.
> > 
> >>  > From c0cb56a4e2bb43e0caaf0b6c080b72a34bc4a075 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >>  > From: Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard at amd.com>
> >>  > Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:55:16 -0400
> >>  > Subject: [PATCH 5/8] R600: limit vtx clauses to one instructions
> >>  >
> >>  > This fixes incorrect address calculations when multiple vtx 
> > instructions
> >>  > are in the same clause.
> >> 
> >>  Maybe add a comment with the actual hw limits so this doesn't cause
> >>  confusion if we fix it down the road?
> >> 
> > 
> > Sure.
> > 
> > -Tom
> > 
> >>  Alex
> > _______________________________________________
> > llvm-commits mailing list
> > llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
> >