LLVMValueRef bitcast(struct lp_build_tgsi_context *bld_base,
enum tgsi_opcode_type type, LLVMValueRef value);
+LLVMValueRef radeon_llvm_bound_index(struct radeon_llvm_context *ctx,
+ LLVMValueRef index,
+ unsigned num);
+
void radeon_llvm_emit_prepare_cube_coords(struct lp_build_tgsi_context *bld_base,
struct lp_build_emit_data *emit_data,
LLVMValueRef *coords_arg,
return value;
}
+/**
+ * Return a value that is equal to the given i32 \p index if it lies in [0,num)
+ * or an undefined value in the same interval otherwise.
+ */
+LLVMValueRef radeon_llvm_bound_index(struct radeon_llvm_context *ctx,
+ LLVMValueRef index,
+ unsigned num)
+{
+ struct gallivm_state *gallivm = &ctx->gallivm;
+ LLVMBuilderRef builder = gallivm->builder;
+ LLVMValueRef c_max = lp_build_const_int32(gallivm, num - 1);
+ LLVMValueRef cc;
+
+ if (util_is_power_of_two(num)) {
+ index = LLVMBuildAnd(builder, index, c_max, "");
+ } else {
+ /* In theory, this MAX pattern should result in code that is
+ * as good as the bit-wise AND above.
+ *
+ * In practice, LLVM generates worse code (at the time of
+ * writing), because its value tracking is not strong enough.
+ */
+ cc = LLVMBuildICmp(builder, LLVMIntULE, index, c_max, "");
+ index = LLVMBuildSelect(builder, cc, index, c_max, "");
+ }
+
+ return index;
+}
+
static struct radeon_llvm_loop *get_current_loop(struct radeon_llvm_context *ctx)
{
return ctx->loop_depth > 0 ? ctx->loop + (ctx->loop_depth - 1) : NULL;
const struct tgsi_ind_register *ind,
int rel_index, unsigned num)
{
- struct gallivm_state *gallivm = &ctx->radeon_bld.gallivm;
- LLVMBuilderRef builder = gallivm->builder;
LLVMValueRef result = get_indirect_index(ctx, ind, rel_index);
- LLVMValueRef c_max = LLVMConstInt(ctx->i32, num - 1, 0);
- LLVMValueRef cc;
/* LLVM 3.8: If indirect resource indexing is used:
* - SI & CIK hang
if (HAVE_LLVM <= 0x0308)
return LLVMGetUndef(ctx->i32);
- if (util_is_power_of_two(num)) {
- result = LLVMBuildAnd(builder, result, c_max, "");
- } else {
- /* In theory, this MAX pattern should result in code that is
- * as good as the bit-wise AND above.
- *
- * In practice, LLVM generates worse code (at the time of
- * writing), because its value tracking is not strong enough.
- */
- cc = LLVMBuildICmp(builder, LLVMIntULE, result, c_max, "");
- result = LLVMBuildSelect(builder, cc, result, c_max, "");
- }
-
- return result;
+ return radeon_llvm_bound_index(&ctx->radeon_bld, result, num);
}