Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net> > 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 brw_reg or backend_reg? I think I would lean >> towards backend_reg. In that case does it make sense to move this into >> brw_reg now only to move it back to backend_reg later on? > > That would be nice. > > I'm just not sure how to do it. brw_reg has to have the subnr field, > and it's nice if that's the field the higher levels use too. > I guess at this point brw_reg is just an implementation detail of backend_reg, if some of it doesn't make sense at the IR level (e.g. because the IR wants more than 5 bits of sub-(V)GRF offset) there's no need to keep the IR tied up to the lower-level brw_reg representation.
> I wonder -- is it possible that we could just get rid of reg_offset > too? For gathering data we have load_payload, so it's not useful > there. I think it's mainly useful for accessing elements of texturing > results. Is doubt there is a way we could avoid that though?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
