[Mesa-dev] TGSI ISA formalization
zackr at vmware.com
Thu Jun 17 11:34:54 PDT 2010
> I like the bitwise, flow control, and primitive groups. My main
> concern is splitting things into groups that make it easy to say, "Oh
> yes, this hardware supports all of these opcodes." Also, we have a
> *lot* of opcodes. Any kind of grouping based on the semantics of the
> opcodes is going to be useful.
Why would you want that? Is that useful to anyone? The state trackers
will use the instructions they need whether a group of GPUs supports
it or not, i.e. it's not like they could emulate LOAD.
Besides we can't really do that. We already had a number of discussions
about caps and the outcome each time was that you can't just create a few
groups and expect the hardware to neatly fall into them (while quite frankly I
never quite agreed with this sentiment, majority has spoken). In any way
the question of which opcodes the given hardware supports is not up to
gallium docs to define.
I think we can only make it easy for people to understand the instructions
Gallium does provide and for that logical grouping is really the only way
More information about the mesa-dev