On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Pohjolainen, Topi <topi.pohjolai...@intel.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 02:40:42PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote: >> With a hack to place an exec_node in the struct in C to be at the same >> location as the inherited exec_node in C++. > > Are you planning to eventually have one but not the other?
I'd kind of like to transition to embedding the exec_node, rather than inheriting so that we can use the types from C. For this series, I don't even use .link from backend_instruction. I just need to add exec_node to backend_instruction so that it has the same structure in C as C++ (and I can access some of the fields from C). > If this is just > temporary it does not make a lot difference but otherwise I would rather > have these with different names. I'm not sure what you mean. > How big a task would it be to teach plusplus logic to use the C-type? I don't think it should be too difficult to switch, now that it's easy to find the uses of the foreach* macros that cast to fs_inst or vec4_instruction. That might actually let us do things like putting instructions in multiple lists (one giant list, and a per-basic block list). _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
