Comme=
nt # 13
on bug 10692=
8
from ubizjak@gmail.co=
m
(In reply to Roland Scheidegger from comment #12)
> (In reply to ubizjak from comment #11)
> > The (effectively the same patch as yours) proposed patch would be:
> >=20
> > diff --git a/src/gallium/drivers/r600/sb/sb_expr.cpp
> > b/src/gallium/drivers/r600/sb/sb_expr.cpp
> > index 7a5d62c8e8..a609d1377f 100644
> > --- a/src/gallium/drivers/r600/sb/sb_expr.cpp
> > +++ b/src/gallium/drivers/r600/sb/sb_expr.cpp
> > @@ -714,6 +714,8 @@ bool expr_handler::fold_assoc=
(alu_node *n) {
> >=20=20
> > n->src.resize(2);
> > n->bc.set_op(ALU_OP2_ADD);
> > + fold_alu_op2(*n);
> > + return true;
> > }
> > } else if (last_arg >=3D 0) {
> > n->src[0] =3D a->src[last_arg];
> >=20
> > WDYT?
>=20
> I am not quite convinced it's ok to return true (in fold_alu_op3) if t=
he
> expression hasn't really been folded. You are quite right that just ab=
ove it
> looks similar, but all other places always return the return value of
> fold_alu_op2 when calling into it from fold_alu_op3.
> (Not saying it isn't correct, just saying I can't tell...)
Beeing a newcomer, I'm also not too familiar with this code, and there are =
no
comments on what the return value really means. Instead of guessing, is it
possible for you to invite the author or other knowledgeable people from me=
sa
community to the discussion in this bugreport?
Looking at the commit logs of src/gallium/drivers/r600/sb, there are quite =
some
experts that can perhaps help here...