On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 13:59:37 -0500, Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday 05 February 2005 09:10, Timothy Miller wrote: > > Something noteworthy about the precision loss for the reciprocal is > > that it will not result in CUMULATIVE error. Numbers are processed > > and send down the pipeline to be used for whatever, and never get > > used again. Unless you count the case of writing out and then > > reading back in, but then you're down to 8 bits anyhow. > > Right. The main problem for me in the past in trying to work with lower > precision was in handling all possible ranges. Floating point in a few > key places will really help that. > > The fleshed out render model is going to answer these questions > perfectly, especially if hooked into Mesa. In that case, we could use > my little game engine demo (among many other possible OpenGL programs) > to run simulations. I'll hook in a replay mode so any defects somebody > happens to stumble on interactively can be reproduced > exactly. > > As far as C++ idioms go, operator overloading is not a big deal to me, > it's just a pet peeve. However, hooking a render.cpp into Mesa might > be tricky, have you considered the linking issues?
Yes, I have considered that, which is why the header file has 'extern "C"' in it. > > Building Mesa 6.2.1 now, let's see how hard it is to weld these two bits > together. > > Regards, > > Daniel > _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
