On 06/07/2016 09:38 AM, Brian Paul wrote:
> On 06/07/2016 10:09 AM, Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tuesday, June 07, 2016 16:15:58 Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks for staying with this!
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I know it's bike-shedding, and I'm not sure what other people's
>> opinions
>>
On 06/07/2016 10:09 AM, Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
Hi,
On Tuesday, June 07, 2016 16:15:58 Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> Thanks for staying with this!
>
> I know it's bike-shedding, and I'm not sure what other people's opinions
> are on this matter, but having the duplication of u_bit_scan and
Hi,
On Tuesday, June 07, 2016 16:15:58 Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> Thanks for staying with this!
>
> I know it's bike-shedding, and I'm not sure what other people's opinions
> are on this matter, but having the duplication of u_bit_scan and
> _mesa_bit_scan feels a bit annoying to me...
Well,
Hi Mathias,
Thanks for staying with this!
I know it's bike-shedding, and I'm not sure what other people's opinions
are on this matter, but having the duplication of u_bit_scan and
_mesa_bit_scan feels a bit annoying to me...
Cheers,
Nicolai
On 07.06.2016 07:29, mathias.froehl...@gmx.net
From: Mathias Fröhlich
Hi all,
following a series with performance improvements
for cpu/draw bound applications. This part makes
more use of the bitmask/ffs technique for iterating
a set of enabled items. The gains are not huge
but they are noticable for some of my