Matt Turner writes:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Francisco Jerez
> wrote:
>> Matt Turner writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Francisco Jerez
>>> wrote:
Matt Turner writes:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Francisco Jerez
> wrote:
>> Would be real
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> Matt Turner writes:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Francisco Jerez
>> wrote:
>>> Matt Turner writes:
>>>
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Francisco Jerez
wrote:
> Would be really nice if we could also get rid of
On Thu, 2016-02-11 at 19:12 -0800, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2016 5:49:55 PM PST Matt Turner wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Francisco Jerez
> wrote:
> > > Would be really nice if we could also get rid of reg_offset as we're at
> > > it. reg and subreg_offset
Matt Turner writes:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Francisco Jerez
> wrote:
>> Matt Turner writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Francisco Jerez
>>> wrote:
Would be really nice if we could also get rid of reg_offset as we're at
it. reg and subreg_offset basically rep
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> Matt Turner writes:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Francisco Jerez
>> wrote:
>>> Would be really nice if we could also get rid of reg_offset as we're at
>>> it. reg and subreg_offset basically represent the same thing but with
>>
Matt Turner writes:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Francisco Jerez
> wrote:
>> Would be really nice if we could also get rid of reg_offset as we're at
>> it. reg and subreg_offset basically represent the same thing but with
>> different units, couldn't we just have a single offset field in
Kenneth Graunke writes:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2016 5:49:55 PM PST Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Francisco Jerez
> wrote:
>> > Would be really nice if we could also get rid of reg_offset as we're at
>> > it. reg and subreg_offset basically represent the same thing
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 5:49:55 PM PST Matt Turner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Francisco Jerez
wrote:
> > Would be really nice if we could also get rid of reg_offset as we're at
> > it. reg and subreg_offset basically represent the same thing but with
> > different units, co
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> Would be really nice if we could also get rid of reg_offset as we're at
> it. reg and subreg_offset basically represent the same thing but with
> different units, couldn't we just have a single offset field in bytes?
> Should it be part of
Kenneth Graunke writes:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2016 1:49:21 PM PST Matt Turner wrote:
>> ---
>> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp | 31 ++
> +---
>> .../drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_combine_constants.cpp | 13 +
>> .../drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_copy_propag
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 1:49:21 PM PST Matt Turner wrote:
> ---
> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp | 31 ++
+---
> .../drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_combine_constants.cpp | 13 +
> .../drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_copy_propagation.cpp | 14 +-
> src
---
src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp | 31 +++---
.../drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_combine_constants.cpp | 13 +
.../drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_copy_propagation.cpp | 14 +-
src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_generator.cpp | 2 +-
src/mesa/drivers/dr
12 matches
Mail list logo
