Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-02-08 14:34:38) >> >> On 08/02/2018 14:22, Ville Syrjälä wrote: >> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 01:06:05PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: >> >> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> >> Coccinelle transformation: >> >> >> >> @@ >> >> expression p, g; >> >> @@ >> >> ( >> >> -INTEL_GEN(p) > g >> >> +IS_GEN_GT(p, g) >> > >> > I think this stuff makes the code pretty close to illegible. >> > In this particular case even more so because "GT" actually >> > means something very different to us. >> >> Oh how true! And I did not realize it at all while writing it! :) >> >> Anyway, something like this, regardless of a name, is needed if people >> want this to be effective. Since the checks have to be moved to known at >> compile time. Or a completely different approach will be needed. > > IS_GEN_RANGE() doesn't cut it? > IS_GEN_RANGE(8,9); short and readable and IS_GEN_RANGE(6, ANY); ? -Mika > I think that people find it inconvenient to use, so some sugar is still > required. > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
