[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 03/29] i965: Define consistent interface to disable control flow execution masking.

[Matt Turner]

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Francisco Jerez <currojerez at riseup.net> wrote:
> Kenneth Graunke <kenneth at whitecape.org> writes:
>
>> On Saturday, May 02, 2015 06:29:30 PM Francisco Jerez wrote:
>>> ---
>>>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_ir_fs.h   | 10 ++++++++++
>>>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_ir_vec4.h |  9 +++++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_ir_fs.h b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_ir_fs.h
>>> index ce23fc5..6c65632 100644
>>> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_ir_fs.h
>>> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_ir_fs.h
>>> @@ -258,4 +258,14 @@ public:
>>>     bool pi_noperspective:1;   /**< Pixel interpolator noperspective flag */
>>>  };
>>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * Disable per-channel control flow execution masking on \p inst.
>>> + */
>>> +static inline fs_inst *
>>> +exec_all(fs_inst *inst)
>>> +{
>>> +   inst->force_writemask_all = true;
>>> +   return inst;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  #endif
>>> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_ir_vec4.h b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_ir_vec4.h
>>> index 36a8224..48dd90f 100644
>>> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_ir_vec4.h
>>> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_ir_vec4.h
>>> @@ -192,6 +192,15 @@ public:
>>>     }
>>>  };
>>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * Disable per-channel control flow execution masking on \p inst.
>>> + */
>>> +inline vec4_instruction *
>>> +exec_all(vec4_instruction *inst)
>>> +{
>>> +   inst->force_writemask_all = true;
>>> +   return inst;
>>> +}
>>>  } /* namespace brw */
>>>
>>>  #endif
>>>
>>
>> Patches 3-6 are:
>> Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenneth at whitecape.org>
>>
> Thanks Ken.
>
>> Matt and I were confused about the "exec_" prefix in the functions
>> though - why "exec"?  "exec_all" makes a lot of sense here - execute on
>> all channels - but "exec_saturate" seems a little odd to me.
>>
>> Perhaps we can find a different prefix (or you can convince us).
>
> *Shrug*, I felt that e.g. saturate() alone would have been misleading
> because the function doesn't saturate a value by itself, instead it
> modifies the execution parameters of an instruction.  I'm open to
> suggestions if you can come up with a nicer prefix.

I think set_* would be better.