Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:19 AM, Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net> > wrote: >> At this point this doesn't contain any information not already in the >> opcode_desc tables, the validation code can just call >> brw_opcode_desc() in order to find out whether an instruction is >> supported by the device. > > NAK. This table is intended to handle things other than the supported > generation -- I sent patches that add more fields but they're in some > review limbo state.
But you notice that this is kind of the killer feature you get from this series (even though it wasn't its original motivation)? The fact that we currently have to update twenty different places any time a new instruction is introduced is quite terrible. If you need to add additional per-instruction metadata please just put them into the same table -- If there is some reason why you can't I'm afraid that the current approach used in the validator won't work either and may have to be reworked because of overlapping opcodes, but it seems better in the long term and less work to just remove it.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
