Comment=
# 5
on bug 62696<=
/a>
from Christian K=C3=B6nig
(In reply to comment #4=
)
> I thought the array support was backward compati=
ble. If if were true, this
> patch wouldn't be needed, right?
Yes indeed, and I find that rather strange, too.
Well one thing that I haven't considered before is that when a target doesn=
't
support indirect addressing all indirect accesses are replaced with a chain=
of
"if (i =3D=3D 0) then return x[0] else if (i =3D=3D 1) then return x[1=
].....", so
having arrays separated makes this inefficient code even more inefficient
(cause the register scavenger then leaves arrays alone), that's what this p=
atch
really should fix.
But you're right, it should NEVER result in incorrect code, so we either ha=
ve a
bug in R300g that's triggered by using more registers than necessary
(unlikely), or we are still missing something in the glsl_to_tgsi pass
(likely).
@Pavel: Could you make sure that the vs-uniform-array-mat2-col-row-rd t=
est is
indeed failing with that change? And also please attach a log of the good c=
ase
for this test.
Thanks in advance,
Christian.