[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 2/2 v2] nir: mako all the intrinsics

[Rob Clark]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Rob Clark <robdclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I threatened to do this a long time ago.. I probably *should* have done
>> it a long time ago when there where many fewer intrinsics.  But the
>> system of macro/#include magic for dealing with intrinsics is a bit
>> annoying, and python has the nice property of optional fxn params,
>> making it possible to define new intrinsics while ignoring parameters
>> that are not applicable (and naming optional params).  And not having to
>> specify various array lengths explicitly is nice too.
>>
>> I think the end result makes it easier to add new intrinsics.
>>
>> v2: couple small fixes found with a test program to compare the old and
>>     new tables
>> v3: misc comments, don't rely on capture=true for meson.build, get rid
>>     of system_values table to avoid return value of intrinsic() and
>>     *mostly* remove side-effects, add autotools build support
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark at gmail.com>
>> ---
>> So, new scheme is, I think, a reasonable compromise between keeping the
>> python "clean" and keeping the intrinsic declarations easy to follow.
>> It still has the side-effect that intrinsic() adds to the table, but
>> drops the separate system_values table so that intrinsic() doesn't
>> return a value.  The alternative would require the helper for various
>> specialized intrinsic categories to be declared far from where they are
>> used, which is, I think, suboptimal.  And it keeps intrinsic() and
>> various wrappers pretty straightforward, so I don't think this should
>> ever pose a problem for refactoring (and certainly less of a problem
>> than the previous solution using cpp macros, so regardless of what your
>> opinion about the py code, I guess anyone could agree that this is an
>> improvement over the current state ;-))
>>
>> Also added autotools build support.  Sorry scons and android.  (Are we
>> ready to drop either of these in favor of nir?)
>
> You mean meson? For Android, no. I don't see that happening anytime
> soon. I looked into it some by having a prebuilt target in Android.mk
> that calls meson. The problem is getting all the Android build
> environment such as include paths out of Android build system and
> passed into meson. I don't know how to do that in a way that is not
> manual and fragile.
>
> It looks like you'd just need to do some copy-n-paste of rules for
> Android. And you know you can push an 'android/*' branch to trigger an
> Android build of mesa?
>

no, I didn't realize that.. on the main git tree?

BR,
-R