On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 05:51:46PM -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > As of now, the width field is no longer used for anything. The width field > "seemed like a good idea at the time" but is actually entirely redundant > with the instruction's execution size. Initially, it gave us the ability > to easily set the instructions execution size based entirely on register > widths. With the builder, we can easiliy set the sizes explicitly and the > width field doesn't have as much purpose. At this point, it's just > redundant information that can get out of sync so it really needs to go. > --- > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp | 62 > ++++------------------ > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_builder.h | 21 ++------ > .../drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_copy_propagation.cpp | 4 -- > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_cse.cpp | 6 +-- > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_reg_allocate.cpp | 4 +- > .../drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_register_coalesce.cpp | 1 - > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_visitor.cpp | 26 ++++----- > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_ir_fs.h | 13 +---- > 8 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 107 deletions(-) >
I started tagging one by one but apart from patch seven where I have doubts that I understand the copy-payload related logic well enough all the rest is: Reviewed-by: Topi Pohjolainen <topi.pohjolai...@intel.com> _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
