On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 09:15:32 AM Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 01:28:25AM -0800, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 12:35:55 PM Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > Add support for decoding the new branch control bit. I saw two things
> > > wrong with
> > > th
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 01:28:25AM -0800, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 12:35:55 PM Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > Add support for decoding the new branch control bit. I saw two things wrong
> > with
> > the existing code.
> >
> > 1. It didn't bother trying to decode the bit.
>
On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 12:35:55 PM Ben Widawsky wrote:
> Add support for decoding the new branch control bit. I saw two things wrong
> with
> the existing code.
>
> 1. It didn't bother trying to decode the bit.
> - While we do not *intentionally* emit this bit today, I think it's
> inter
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Ben Widawsky
wrote:
> Add support for decoding the new branch control bit. I saw two things wrong
> with
> the existing code.
>
> 1. It didn't bother trying to decode the bit.
> - While we do not *intentionally* emit this bit today, I think it's
> interesting
>
Add support for decoding the new branch control bit. I saw two things wrong with
the existing code.
1. It didn't bother trying to decode the bit.
- While we do not *intentionally* emit this bit today, I think it's interesting
to see if we somehow ended up with the bit set. It may also be usefu
