-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
cfg: reuse original ControlRegion
s as much as possible during structurization.
#55
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
eddyb
force-pushed
the
structurize-keep-regions
branch
from
January 12, 2024 22:56
478a889
to
d042cb8
Compare
fornwall
force-pushed
the
structurize-keep-regions
branch
from
January 31, 2024 12:51
6b5bfc6
to
d106013
Compare
eddyb
commented
Jan 31, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just did a once-over, this seems ready to land, just needs CHANGELOG (heh @fornwall beat me to it).
fornwall
previously approved these changes
Jan 31, 2024
eddyb
force-pushed
the
structurize-keep-regions
branch
from
January 31, 2024 13:31
d106013
to
bb882bb
Compare
fornwall
previously approved these changes
Jan 31, 2024
github-merge-queue
bot
dismissed
fornwall’s stale review
January 31, 2024 13:54
The merge-base changed after approval.
eddyb
force-pushed
the
structurize-keep-regions
branch
from
January 31, 2024 14:19
bb882bb
to
b380a7c
Compare
eddyb
force-pushed
the
structurize-keep-regions
branch
from
January 31, 2024 14:42
b380a7c
to
9fa349c
Compare
fornwall
approved these changes
Jan 31, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Original motivation back when I first started this refactor was this bug:
Progress stalled back then and I only revived the branch for the Vulkan layer (#53), because trying to run the Vulkan CTS with the SPIR-T layer would run into:
OpSpecConstantOp
support (already implemented in the Vulkan layer branch)list_eq_key
panics (fixed by this PR)OpTypeForwardPointer
support (not implemented yet, but it's much rarer and only used withPhysicalStorageBuffer
pointers, since logical pointers don't allow recursive data types in the first place)On top of unblocking the SPIR-T Vulkan layer for in-depth testing, this refactor, out of necessity of not introducing even more spurious unused
bool
s, makes the existing ones as lazy as possible (within the limits of what the structurizer knows without adding more analysis passes).You can see in the
README.md
example, that this PR removes both extraneousbool
s (for "doesbreak
" vs "doesn'tbreak
"), and instead the original condition (v2
) is now used directly by the loop.I've also theoretically come up with even more advanced techniques (such as taking N disjoint targets that can be dispatched all at once, and lazily generating the appropriate propagation of integer values
0..N
to use aswitch
), but they either require other PRs to land as well first, and/or are too invasive and this has already been a ridiculous sunken cost compared to the measely benefits it offers.