> 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 to go. z _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
