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

[Kenneth Graunke]

On Monday, May 11, 2015 05:12:41 PM Matt Turner wrote:
> 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.

Agreed.  Reading this in action...

   exec_all(bld.MOV(...))

sounds a bit funny to me - execute this MOV?

set_exec_all or set_writemask_all(MOV(...)) reads a bit nicer - set this
property on the given MOV instruction...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20150511/6f35ba65/attachment.sig>