On 11/14/2011 03:03 PM, Morgan Armand wrote:
On 11/14/2011 6:40 PM, Brian Paul wrote:
On 11/14/2011 10:24 AM, Morgan Armand wrote:
On 11/14/2011 3:44 PM, Brian Paul wrote:
On 11/13/2011 03:24 AM, Morgan Armand wrote:
---
src/gallium/drivers/softpipe/sp_tex_sample.c | 7 ++++---
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/gallium/drivers/softpipe/sp_tex_sample.c
b/src/gallium/drivers/softpipe/sp_tex_sample.c
index 72629a0..9b0e54e1 100644
--- a/src/gallium/drivers/softpipe/sp_tex_sample.c
+++ b/src/gallium/drivers/softpipe/sp_tex_sample.c
@@ -491,7 +491,8 @@ wrap_linear_unorm_clamp(const float s[4], unsigned size,
uint ch;
for (ch = 0; ch< 4; ch++) {
/* Not exactly what the spec says, but it matches NVIDIA output */
- float u = CLAMP(s[ch] - 0.5F, 0.0f, (float) size - 1.0f);
+ float u = CLAMP(s[ch], 0.0f, (float) size);
+ u -= 0.5F;
icoord0[ch] = util_ifloor(u);
If s=0, then icoord0 = -1 and that's not right. The 'i' coordinates must be in
the range [0,size-1].
Are you trying to fix a specific bug or piglit test?
icoord1[ch] = icoord0[ch] + 1;
w[ch] = frac(u);
@@ -512,8 +513,8 @@ wrap_linear_unorm_clamp_to_border(const float s[4],
unsigned size,
u -= 0.5F;
icoord0[ch] = util_ifloor(u);
icoord1[ch] = icoord0[ch] + 1;
- if (icoord1[ch]> (int) size - 1)
- icoord1[ch] = size - 1;
+ if (icoord1[ch]> (int) size)
+ icoord1[ch] = size;
w[ch] = frac(u);
}
}
-Brian
Yes, sorry, I forgot to mention it. This patch fixes texwrap-RECT-bordercolor
and texwrap-RECT-proj-bordercolor.
From what I understand from the spec, we expect to get the border color when
sampling with out-of-range coordinates, or the
correct interpolation between the border color and the texel color when
sampling with coordinates in the range [0; 1/2N[ or
[1-1/2N; max[. That's why I converted the coordinates to [-1;size] instead.
get_texel_*d functions handle the case when a texture
coordinate is out-of-range but it may not the case of all functions so I
probably need to check that carefully.
Please correct me if I misunderstood something.
I think I was wrong above. I thought you were changing the clamp-to-edge
behaviour, but that case is implemented in the
wrap_linear_unorm_clamp_to_edge() function.
In any case, I remember that implementing what the spec says didn't match the
output from NVIDIA's driver (hence the comment there).
Do you have an NVIDIA GPU to compare against?
I could do some testing/comparing later...
-Brian
Yes I have, and AFAICT the results are identical (pixel-perfect, in fact). I've
made the test on a windows machine, with the last
drivers.
OK, sounds good.
Sorry for the initial confusion.
Reviewed-by: Brian Paul <bri...@vmware.com>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
