Fiddled with the logic a bit so that when we're in unit test mode, the
output still includes all of the SPIR-V (as well as the validation error
message), so that tracking them down is easier.
Bug: skia:10694
Change-Id: I15e7777af3d268a5952765dbe5d63612cad0ac07
Reviewed-on: https://skia-review.googlesource.com/c/skia/+/338320
Commit-Queue: Brian Osman <brianosman@google.com>
Reviewed-by: John Stiles <johnstiles@google.com>
Previously, we'd gauge suitability for inlining by counting the nodes in
a function; past a certain limit, the function was considered "too big."
Now, we also incorporate the number of times that function is called.
So if a function is called three times, and its size is 20 nodes, it
would be considered to have an inlining cost of 60 (3 * 20) instead of
20.
This should tamp down the aggressive nature of the inliner in cases like
gaussian convolution or complicated blends, and will hopefully satisfy
Pinpoint.
No change visible in Nanobench (which doesn't test any of these sorts of
patterns, but certainly inlines things): http://screen/AwD5hkgkEfjVx4g
Change-Id: Ie5e32898245ac854adb9ddd52d87001df6a67125
Reviewed-on: https://skia-review.googlesource.com/c/skia/+/337676
Commit-Queue: John Stiles <johnstiles@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brian Osman <brianosman@google.com>
Auto-Submit: John Stiles <johnstiles@google.com>
Change-Id: I1be21b428939d17bbf3a9347a64db56c7cd69eb4
Reviewed-on: https://skia-review.googlesource.com/c/skia/+/337638
Commit-Queue: John Stiles <johnstiles@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Brian Osman <brianosman@google.com>
Auto-Submit: John Stiles <johnstiles@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brian Osman <brianosman@google.com>
