Aapo Tahkola [2006-06-18 15:40]: > On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:53:40 +0200 > Tilman Sauerbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Rune Petersen [2006-06-18 02:27]: > > > Tilman Sauerbeck wrote: > > > > Rune Petersen [2006-06-17 23:38]: > > > > > > > >> I'm having problems with the ARL instruction. > > > >> It appears to mostly return 0. > > > > > > > > Yes. It would probably help if you could document in which cases > > > > it works reliably and in which cases it doesn't :) > > > > > > Something very strange is going on with ARL: > > > > > > I have an array with all non-zero values. > > > > > > I do an ARL on any given value within the array. > > > > > > > > > I read the array myArray[addr.x] and I allways get the value at > > > index 0. > > > > > > if I add an offset myArray[addr.x + <offset>] where addr.x + > > > <offset> > "array size" provided addr.x is the correct value, I get > > > 0. > > > > > > Looks to me like there is a bounds check on arrays that work > > > correctly, but the actual array lookup is broken. > > > > > > Is this at all possible? > > > > Interesting, I can also reproduce this behaviour. So it seems like ARL > > is working correctly, but reading from ADDRESSes is broken. > > It should work now. Thanks.
Awesome, the ARL test from progs/vp now passes, as do the glean tests :) Thanks, Tilman -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
pgptT5AuBVTls.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
