From: Ian Romanick Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 23:24:35 +0000 (-0700) Subject: i965/vs: Fix swizzle related assertion X-Git-Url: https://git.libre-soc.org/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=fe006a74f6fd1ddeec778226111938193a995a6c;p=mesa.git i965/vs: Fix swizzle related assertion As innocuous as it seemed, ebca47a basically broke the world (e.g., >200 piglit regressions). In vec4_visitor::emit_block_move, src->swizzle was expected to be BRW_SWIZZLE_NOOP before setting it to a swizzle that would replicate the existing channels of the source type to a vec4 (e.g., .xyyy for a vec2). The original assertion seems to have been a little bogus. In addition to being BRW_SWIZZLE_NOOP, src->swizzle might already be a swizzle that would replicate the existing channels of the source type to a vec4. In other words, it might already have the value that we're about to assign to it. Signed-off-by: Ian Romanick Reviewed-by: Eric Anholt --- diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_visitor.cpp b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_visitor.cpp index 5815e31732e..94206842399 100644 --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_visitor.cpp +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_visitor.cpp @@ -1472,7 +1472,8 @@ vec4_visitor::emit_block_move(dst_reg *dst, src_reg *src, dst->writemask = (1 << type->vector_elements) - 1; /* Do we need to worry about swizzling a swizzle? */ - assert(src->swizzle == BRW_SWIZZLE_NOOP); + assert(src->swizzle == BRW_SWIZZLE_NOOP + || src->swizzle == swizzle_for_size(type->vector_elements)); src->swizzle = swizzle_for_size(type->vector_elements); vec4_instruction *inst = emit(MOV(*dst, *src));