Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 02/10] gallivm: implement the correct version of LRP
Am 15.10.2015 um 16:44 schrieb Marek Olšák: > Any comment or is this okay with people? Given, "(1-t)*a + t*b", the > original code didn't return b for t=1 because it's "floating-point". > > Marek > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Marek Olšákwrote: >> From: Marek Olšák >> >> The previous version has precision issues. This can be a problem >> with tessellation. Sadly, I can't find the article where I read it >> anymore. I'm not sure if the unsafe-fp-math flag would be enough to revert >> this. >> --- >> src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c | 13 +++-- >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c >> b/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c >> index 0ad78b0..512558b 100644 >> --- a/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c >> +++ b/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c >> @@ -538,12 +538,13 @@ lrp_emit( >> struct lp_build_tgsi_context * bld_base, >> struct lp_build_emit_data * emit_data) >> { >> - LLVMValueRef tmp; >> - tmp = lp_build_emit_llvm_binary(bld_base, TGSI_OPCODE_SUB, >> - emit_data->args[1], >> - emit_data->args[2]); >> - emit_data->output[emit_data->chan] = lp_build_emit_llvm_ternary(bld_base, >> -TGSI_OPCODE_MAD, emit_data->args[0], tmp, >> emit_data->args[2]); >> + struct lp_build_context *bld = _base->base; >> + LLVMValueRef inv, a, b; >> + >> + inv = lp_build_sub(bld, bld_base->base.one, emit_data->args[0]); >> + a = lp_build_mul(bld, emit_data->args[1], emit_data->args[0]); >> + b = lp_build_mul(bld, emit_data->args[2], inv); >> + emit_data->output[emit_data->chan] = lp_build_add(bld, a, b); >> } >> >> /* TGSI_OPCODE_MAD */ >> -- Please add a comment why it's using t*a + (1-t)*b and not (a-b)*t + b. Though it is yet another thing we should have some more control over in tgsi. Because if you're willing to allow unsafe-fp-math, then you should also be willing to accept the simpler formula (I'm quite sure unsafe-fp-math would be allowed to turn one formula into the other). But otherwise I guess this is ok - it is the formula specified by glsl after all. Roland ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 02/10] gallivm: implement the correct version of LRP
Any comment or is this okay with people? Given, "(1-t)*a + t*b", the original code didn't return b for t=1 because it's "floating-point". Marek On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Marek Olšákwrote: > From: Marek Olšák > > The previous version has precision issues. This can be a problem > with tessellation. Sadly, I can't find the article where I read it > anymore. I'm not sure if the unsafe-fp-math flag would be enough to revert > this. > --- > src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c | 13 +++-- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c > b/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c > index 0ad78b0..512558b 100644 > --- a/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c > +++ b/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c > @@ -538,12 +538,13 @@ lrp_emit( > struct lp_build_tgsi_context * bld_base, > struct lp_build_emit_data * emit_data) > { > - LLVMValueRef tmp; > - tmp = lp_build_emit_llvm_binary(bld_base, TGSI_OPCODE_SUB, > - emit_data->args[1], > - emit_data->args[2]); > - emit_data->output[emit_data->chan] = lp_build_emit_llvm_ternary(bld_base, > -TGSI_OPCODE_MAD, emit_data->args[0], tmp, > emit_data->args[2]); > + struct lp_build_context *bld = _base->base; > + LLVMValueRef inv, a, b; > + > + inv = lp_build_sub(bld, bld_base->base.one, emit_data->args[0]); > + a = lp_build_mul(bld, emit_data->args[1], emit_data->args[0]); > + b = lp_build_mul(bld, emit_data->args[2], inv); > + emit_data->output[emit_data->chan] = lp_build_add(bld, a, b); > } > > /* TGSI_OPCODE_MAD */ > -- > 2.1.4 > ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 02/10] gallivm: implement the correct version of LRP
Roland was on PTO. IMO, the change makes sense from a numeric accuracy POV. I fear this might cause some slowdown with llvmpipe (two muls intead of one), but hopefully it won't be significant. The accuracy issue could cause glitches to llvmpipe too. Jose On 15/10/15 15:44, Marek Olšák wrote: Any comment or is this okay with people? Given, "(1-t)*a + t*b", the original code didn't return b for t=1 because it's "floating-point". Marek On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Marek Olšákwrote: From: Marek Olšák The previous version has precision issues. This can be a problem with tessellation. Sadly, I can't find the article where I read it anymore. I'm not sure if the unsafe-fp-math flag would be enough to revert this. --- src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c | 13 +++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c b/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c index 0ad78b0..512558b 100644 --- a/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c +++ b/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c @@ -538,12 +538,13 @@ lrp_emit( struct lp_build_tgsi_context * bld_base, struct lp_build_emit_data * emit_data) { - LLVMValueRef tmp; - tmp = lp_build_emit_llvm_binary(bld_base, TGSI_OPCODE_SUB, - emit_data->args[1], - emit_data->args[2]); - emit_data->output[emit_data->chan] = lp_build_emit_llvm_ternary(bld_base, -TGSI_OPCODE_MAD, emit_data->args[0], tmp, emit_data->args[2]); + struct lp_build_context *bld = _base->base; + LLVMValueRef inv, a, b; + + inv = lp_build_sub(bld, bld_base->base.one, emit_data->args[0]); + a = lp_build_mul(bld, emit_data->args[1], emit_data->args[0]); + b = lp_build_mul(bld, emit_data->args[2], inv); + emit_data->output[emit_data->chan] = lp_build_add(bld, a, b); } /* TGSI_OPCODE_MAD */ -- 2.1.4 ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 02/10] gallivm: implement the correct version of LRP
On 15/10/15 16:20, Roland Scheidegger wrote: Am 15.10.2015 um 16:44 schrieb Marek Olšák: Any comment or is this okay with people? Given, "(1-t)*a + t*b", the original code didn't return b for t=1 because it's "floating-point". Marek On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Marek Olšákwrote: From: Marek Olšák The previous version has precision issues. This can be a problem with tessellation. Sadly, I can't find the article where I read it anymore. I'm not sure if the unsafe-fp-math flag would be enough to revert this. --- src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c | 13 +++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c b/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c index 0ad78b0..512558b 100644 --- a/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c +++ b/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c @@ -538,12 +538,13 @@ lrp_emit( struct lp_build_tgsi_context * bld_base, struct lp_build_emit_data * emit_data) { - LLVMValueRef tmp; - tmp = lp_build_emit_llvm_binary(bld_base, TGSI_OPCODE_SUB, - emit_data->args[1], - emit_data->args[2]); - emit_data->output[emit_data->chan] = lp_build_emit_llvm_ternary(bld_base, -TGSI_OPCODE_MAD, emit_data->args[0], tmp, emit_data->args[2]); + struct lp_build_context *bld = _base->base; + LLVMValueRef inv, a, b; + + inv = lp_build_sub(bld, bld_base->base.one, emit_data->args[0]); + a = lp_build_mul(bld, emit_data->args[1], emit_data->args[0]); + b = lp_build_mul(bld, emit_data->args[2], inv); + emit_data->output[emit_data->chan] = lp_build_add(bld, a, b); } /* TGSI_OPCODE_MAD */ -- Please add a comment why it's using t*a + (1-t)*b and not (a-b)*t + b. Though it is yet another thing we should have some more control over in tgsi. > Because if you're willing to allow unsafe-fp-math, then you should also be willing to accept the simpler formula (I'm quite sure unsafe-fp-math would be allowed to turn one formula into the other). Yep, that's my understanding of "unsafe fp math" too. Jose ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev