On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 07:13:49AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 15/03/2019 06:56, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > 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. > > > >> 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. > > One possible alternative could be splitting the 64-bit platform mask > into two 32-bit dwords. Like: > > u32 platform_mask[2]; > > #define IS_PLATFORM(p) (platform_mask[p / 32] & BIT(p % 32)) This is fast approaching nih bitmap.h territory. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
