On 19.04.2013 09:26, Jose Fonseca wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Roland Scheidegger <srol...@vmware.com> >> >> docs were missing, especially the opcode-from-hell switch however is anything >> but obvious. >> --- >> src/gallium/docs/source/tgsi.rst | 57 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- >> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/gallium/docs/source/tgsi.rst >> b/src/gallium/docs/source/tgsi.rst >> index b7180f8..b46347e 100644 >> --- a/src/gallium/docs/source/tgsi.rst >> +++ b/src/gallium/docs/source/tgsi.rst >> @@ -861,7 +861,18 @@ This instruction replicates its result. >> >> .. opcode:: BRK - Break >> >> - TBD >> + Unconditionally moves the point of execution to the instruction after the >> + next endloop or endswitch. The instruction must appear within a >> loop/endloop >> + or switch/endswitch. >> + >> + >> +.. opcode:: BREAKC - Break Conditional >> + >> + Conditionally moves the point of execution to the instruction after the >> + next endloop or endswitch. The instruction must appear within a >> loop/endloop >> + or switch/endswitch. >> + Condition evaluates to true if src0.x != 0 where src0.x is interpreted >> + as an integer register. > This is fine. But I do wonder if hardware can really benefit from "UIF foo; > BREAK; ENDIF" vs "BREAKC foo", or if this is just syntactic sugar that merely > burdens developers.
IF; BREAK; ENDIF usually gets optimized into a BREAKC anyway, so, it's just easier on the compiler and people who write shaders in TGSI, and drivers without optimization. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
