On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Ilia Mirkin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Marek Olšák <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Ilia Mirkin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Like Roland, I don't see what's being gained. It's more code >>> everywhere and harder to read the TGSI directly. >> >> Harder to read the "IMM" string in the operand? > > Yeah. You see a KILL_IF IMM[]... and then have to look up what that > immediate is among the 75 other immediates. For all you know it's not > -1 but something else. For long programs, this isn't great, esp if > you're matching things up to the GLSL. > >> >> "more code everywhere"? >> 21 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 200 deletions(-) >> >> This is the reason: 200 deletions(-) >> >>> >>> Neither nv30 nor nv50+ do the checks you suggest. >> >> But they can if they want. > > ... thus leading to more code. > > Anyways, since my (recent) ability to contribute has greatly > atrophied, I'm not going to explicitly NAK this. But you have my 2c.
I don't really understand the backlash, and especially from nouveau it doesn't make sense. It's just a removal of a redundant instruction that simplifies driver code for me. So far nobody asked me to check IMM in drivers and keep the old codepath there. Yes, KILL_IF is silly, but it's a superset of both. Marek _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
