On Monday, May 11, 2015 05:12:41 PM Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net> wrote:
> > Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> writes:
> >
> >> On Saturday, May 02, 2015 06:29:30 PM Francisco Jerez wrote:
> >>> ---
> >>> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_ir_fs.h | 10 ++++++++++
> >>> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_ir_vec4.h | 9 +++++++++
> >>> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_ir_fs.h
> >>> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_ir_fs.h
> >>> index ce23fc5..6c65632 100644
> >>> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_ir_fs.h
> >>> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_ir_fs.h
> >>> @@ -258,4 +258,14 @@ public:
> >>> bool pi_noperspective:1; /**< Pixel interpolator noperspective flag
> >>> */
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> +/**
> >>> + * Disable per-channel control flow execution masking on \p inst.
> >>> + */
> >>> +static inline fs_inst *
> >>> +exec_all(fs_inst *inst)
> >>> +{
> >>> + inst->force_writemask_all = true;
> >>> + return inst;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> #endif
> >>> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_ir_vec4.h
> >>> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_ir_vec4.h
> >>> index 36a8224..48dd90f 100644
> >>> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_ir_vec4.h
> >>> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_ir_vec4.h
> >>> @@ -192,6 +192,15 @@ public:
> >>> }
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> +/**
> >>> + * Disable per-channel control flow execution masking on \p inst.
> >>> + */
> >>> +inline vec4_instruction *
> >>> +exec_all(vec4_instruction *inst)
> >>> +{
> >>> + inst->force_writemask_all = true;
> >>> + return inst;
> >>> +}
> >>> } /* namespace brw */
> >>>
> >>> #endif
> >>>
> >>
> >> Patches 3-6 are:
> >> Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org>
> >>
> > Thanks Ken.
> >
> >> Matt and I were confused about the "exec_" prefix in the functions
> >> though - why "exec"? "exec_all" makes a lot of sense here - execute on
> >> all channels - but "exec_saturate" seems a little odd to me.
> >>
> >> Perhaps we can find a different prefix (or you can convince us).
> >
> > *Shrug*, I felt that e.g. saturate() alone would have been misleading
> > because the function doesn't saturate a value by itself, instead it
> > modifies the execution parameters of an instruction. I'm open to
> > suggestions if you can come up with a nicer prefix.
>
> I think set_* would be better.Agreed. Reading this in action... exec_all(bld.MOV(...)) sounds a bit funny to me - execute this MOV? set_exec_all or set_writemask_all(MOV(...)) reads a bit nicer - set this property on the given MOV instruction...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
