On Mon, 2016-08-08 at 15:30 -0700, Francisco Jerez wrote: > Iago Toral Quiroga <ito...@igalia.com> writes: > > > > > --- > > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4.cpp | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4.cpp > > b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4.cpp > > index 829b7d3..88bf895 100644 > > --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4.cpp > > +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4.cpp > > @@ -1580,6 +1580,9 @@ > > vec4_visitor::dump_instruction(backend_instruction *be_inst, FILE > > *file) > > if (inst->force_writemask_all) > > fprintf(file, " NoMask"); > > > > + if (inst->exec_size == 4) > > + fprintf(file, "%s", inst->group == 0 ? " 1N" : " 2N"); > > + > In the FS back-end we do: > > > > > if (inst->exec_size != dispatch_width) > > fprintf(file, "group%d ", inst->group); > Would it make sense to have the vec4 back-end behave the same way for > consistency? (with dispatch_width equal to 8)
Yeah, I had noticed the difference I intended to fix it, but I forgot about it, thanks for reminding me, we should really try to have consistent outputs. I have the same doubt I mentioned in the same patch for the disassembly (patch 43) regarding whether we should show this for any exec_size != 4 though. Iago > > > > fprintf(file, "\n"); > > } > > _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
