On Sep 4, 2014 10:45 PM, "Matt Turner" <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: > > This will, eventually, allow us to manage execution widths of instructions > > in a much more natural way from the fs_visitor level. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason.ekstr...@intel.com> > > Adding a width field to fs_inst might be fine, but I don't think I > like adding the parameter to every fs_inst constructor. It seems like > it's something that's rarely going to be non-default. With other > things like that we just set them after creating the instruction.
Unfortunately, there's no good way to set a default in fs_inst when the constructor is unaware of the fs_visitor. The default is provided by the fs_visitor::emit functions. This is admittedly a little painful for blorp, but it works out OK for fs_visitor. I tried making a value of 0 mean "choose a default for me" but that didn't work well either. The only other real option would be to guess based on register widths but that gets us to a chicken-and-egg problem where register width depends on instruction width and vice-versa. > Also, am I correct that the width field isn't actually hooked up to > anything at this point? Yes, that's correct. Hooking it up comes later. --Jason
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev