----- Original Message -----
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:05:38 +0200, Tolga Dalman
> <tolga.dal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Kenneth,
> >
> > On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 14:41:45 -0700
> > Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> wrote:
> >
> > > - if (reg->type == BRW_REGISTER_TYPE_F) {
> > > - return reg->imm.f == 0.0;
> > > + if (type == BRW_REGISTER_TYPE_F) {
> > > + return imm.f == 0.0;
> > [...]
> > > - if (reg->type == BRW_REGISTER_TYPE_F) {
> > > - return reg->imm.f == 1.0;
> > > + if (type == BRW_REGISTER_TYPE_F) {
> > > + return imm.f == 1.0;
> >
> > Shouldn't this rather be something like
> > fabs(imm.f - 1.0) < std::numeric_limits<float>::eps() ?
> >
> > Nevertheless, I like your patch.
>
> I don't think so: (some variable equal to 1.0) * (1.0 + epsilon)
> should
> return (1.0 + epsilon), while your change would optimize that to
> return
> the variable's value of 1.0, right? I wouldn't want to do that
> without
> some clear reason to.
>
And this is still the case since the optimisation applies for deltas that are
*less* than epsilon, not *less-or-equal* as you imply.
--
michal
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
