On 05/29/2017 09:24 PM, Matteo Bruni wrote:
2017-05-24 11:46 GMT+02:00 Paul Gofman <gofmanp(a)gmail.com>:
+ if (!(const_set->table == current_table && current_start_offset == start_offset + && const_set->direct_copy == first_const->direct_copy + && current_data == const_set->param->data + && (const_set->direct_copy || (first_const->param->type == const_set->param->type + && first_const->param->class == const_set->param->class + && first_const->param->columns == const_set->param->columns + && first_const->param->rows == const_set->param->rows + && first_const->register_count == const_set->register_count + && (i == const_tab->const_set_count - 1 + || first_const->param->element_count == const_set->param->element_count))))) + { + TRACE("direct_copy %u, i %u, index %u, param %s.%s, current_data %p, const_set->param->data %p, "\ + "current_start_offset %u, start_offset %u, const_set->table %u, current_table %u.\n", + const_set->direct_copy, i, index, debugstr_a(param->name), + debugstr_a(const_set->param->name), current_data, const_set->param->data, + current_start_offset, start_offset, const_set->table, current_table); + break; + } This looks like a debug trace.
+ TRACE("Merging %u child parameters for %s, not merging %u, direct_copy %u.\n", i - index, + debugstr_a(param->name), const_tab->const_set_count - i, first_const->direct_copy); I guess it's intentional that you're printing this even when not merging anything, in that case the TRACE sounds a bit awkward though. Maybe have a separate TRACE for that case? Both traces are to have a possibility to check from trace log what is merged and not "merged" and why, for performance analysis. If you think it is more of debug I can remove it, though since it is in initialization only I was thinking it does not add too much noise.
BTW, please format the BOOL with %#x.
+ if (i > index + 1) + { + first_const->element_count = element_count; + if (first_const->direct_copy) + { + first_const->element_count = 1; + if (index == start_index + && !(param->type == D3DXPT_VOID && param->class == D3DXPC_STRUCT)) + { + if (param_type_to_table_type(param->type) == PRES_VT_MAX) + return D3DERR_INVALIDCALL; + first_const->param = param; + } + first_const->register_count = get_reg_offset(current_table, current_start_offset) + - first_const->register_index; + } + memmove(&const_tab->const_set[index + 1], &const_tab->const_set[i], + sizeof(*const_tab->const_set) * (const_tab->const_set_count - i)); + const_tab->const_set_count -= i - index - 1; + } Just for my own curiosity, do you think it's significant to merge non-direct_copy entries? Not that it hurts anything to have it.
Yes, it is crucial together with the next patches I did not send yet. Even in this patchset removing extra const_set entries is beneficial: it removes a lot of dirty checks when skipping const_set's from the same parameter on CommitChanges, and also initializing the data for inner loops less times. In the next patches which is not there yet I: - Factor out type conversion which can be used for an array of values, removing switching for each value being set; - Introduce a separate path for setting scalar and vectors (which is simpler than general matrix case an quite often may be grouped effectively even when it is not 'direct_copy'); - Optimize matrix settings loops. Copying ~100 element array with transpose is quite a common case. Merging them in a one const_set and doing that things further is a huge optimization actually.