[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 42/95] i965/vec4: dump NibCtrl for instructions with execsize 4

[Iago Toral]

On Mon, 2016-08-08 at 15:30 -0700, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> Iago Toral Quiroga <itoral at igalia.com> writes:
> 
> > 
> > ---
> >  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4.cpp | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4.cpp
> > b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4.cpp
> > index 829b7d3..88bf895 100644
> > --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4.cpp
> > +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4.cpp
> > @@ -1580,6 +1580,9 @@
> > vec4_visitor::dump_instruction(backend_instruction *be_inst, FILE
> > *file)
> >     if (inst->force_writemask_all)
> >        fprintf(file, " NoMask");
> >  
> > +   if (inst->exec_size == 4)
> > +      fprintf(file, "%s", inst->group == 0 ? " 1N" : " 2N");
> > +
> In the FS back-end we do:
> 
> > 
> >   if (inst->exec_size != dispatch_width)
> >         fprintf(file, "group%d ", inst->group);
> Would it make sense to have the vec4 back-end behave the same way for
> consistency? (with dispatch_width equal to 8)

Yeah, I had noticed the difference I intended to fix it, but I forgot
about it, thanks for reminding me, we should really try to have
consistent outputs.

I have the same doubt I mentioned in the same patch for the disassembly
(patch 43) regarding whether we should show this for any exec_size != 4
though.

Iago

> > 
> >     fprintf(file, "\n");
> >  }
> >