Em sex, 2019-03-15 às 06:56 +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin escreveu: > On 15/03/2019 00:52, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting José Roberto de Souza (2019-03-15 00:42:35) > > > We don't have any platform that is composed by 2 or more platforms so > > > we don't need a mask, lets drop it and remove the actual limit of 32 > > > platforms. > > Platform mask was a nifty trick to compile tests like IS_SKYLAKE || > IS_BROADWELL etc into a single conditional. > So perhaps the code would benefit from a small comment that says exactly that, so the next person looking at it won't propose its removal again. José, would you volunteer for that patch? > > gcc doesn't entirely agree, this is a net loss here (i.e. code size > > increases). > > Perhaps the size re-gain of dropping the platform mask could be checked > against the size gain of making the mask 64 bit. > > However, one other benefit of the mask will also help with dead code > elimination once per SKU build work is resurfaced. For the single > selected platforms it doesn't matter, but for a subset it still does I > think. > > So I think we got two questions here - checking between size gains of > the two options, and how interesting would multi-platform builds be. > > One use case for the latter I had in mind was legacy vs execlists driver > build but that wasn't based on any formal feature requests as far as I > am aware. > > Regards, > > Tvrtko > _______________________________________________ > 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
