On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net> wrote: > Would be really nice if we could also get rid of reg_offset as we're at > it. reg and subreg_offset basically represent the same thing but with > different units, couldn't we just have a single offset field in bytes? > Should it be part of brw_reg or backend_reg? I think I would lean > towards backend_reg. In that case does it make sense to move this into > brw_reg now only to move it back to backend_reg later on?
That would be nice. I'm just not sure how to do it. brw_reg has to have the subnr field, and it's nice if that's the field the higher levels use too. I wonder -- is it possible that we could just get rid of reg_offset too? For gathering data we have load_payload, so it's not useful there. I think it's mainly useful for accessing elements of texturing results. Is doubt there is a way we could avoid that though? _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
