On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Erik Faye-Lund <kusmab...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: >> This comment tripped me up for a second. This really means that you've >> found either >> >> - min(max(x, 0.0), 1.0); or >> - max(min(x, 1.0), 0.0) > > Hmm, but are optimizing both of these to saturate OK? Shouldn't > min(max(NaN, 0.0), 1.0) give 0.0, whereas max(min(NaN, 1.0), 0.0) give > 1.0?
Under standard IEEE rules, wouldn't the NaN propagate through all of these expressions? The GLSL 4.40 spec says "Operations and built-in functions that operate on a NaN are not required to return a NaN as the result." So it seems like we have a lot of flexibility here. Is there some text I'm missing? _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
