Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] gallium/tgsi: correct typo propagated from NV_vertex_program1_1

2014-03-05 Thread Erik Faye-Lund
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Erik Faye-Lund kusmab...@gmail.com wrote: In the specification text of NV_vertex_program1_1, the upper limit of the RCC instruction is written as 1.884467e+19 in scientific notation, but as 0x5F80 in binary. But the binary version translates to 1.84467e+19

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] gallium/tgsi: correct typo propagated from NV_vertex_program1_1

2014-02-07 Thread Erik Faye-Lund
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Brian Paul bri...@vmware.com wrote: On 02/06/2014 09:09 AM, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: In the specification text of NV_vertex_program1_1, the upper limit of the RCC instruction is written as 1.884467e+19 in scientific notation, but as 0x5F80 in binary. But the

[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] gallium/tgsi: correct typo propagated from NV_vertex_program1_1

2014-02-06 Thread Erik Faye-Lund
In the specification text of NV_vertex_program1_1, the upper limit of the RCC instruction is written as 1.884467e+19 in scientific notation, but as 0x5F80 in binary. But the binary version translates to 1.84467e+19 rather than 1.884467e+19 in scientific notation. Since the lower-limit equals

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] gallium/tgsi: correct typo propagated from NV_vertex_program1_1

2014-02-06 Thread Brian Paul
On 02/06/2014 09:09 AM, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: In the specification text of NV_vertex_program1_1, the upper limit of the RCC instruction is written as 1.884467e+19 in scientific notation, but as 0x5F80 in binary. But the binary version translates to 1.84467e+19 rather than 1.884467e+19 in