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 Olšák wrote:
From: M
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 wrot
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 Olšák wrote:
>> From: Marek Olšák
>>
>> The previous ver
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 Olšák wrote:
> From: Marek Olšák
>
> The previous version has precision issues. This can be a problem
> with tes
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 +