On 05/07/2012 08:34 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: > On Sat, 05 May 2012 14:43:44 +0200, Christoph Bumiller > <e0425...@student.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >> Test case for the "glsl_to_tgsi: use TGSI_OPCODE_CEIL for >> ir_unop_ceil" patch attached. > > This wasn't caught by the generated test for ceil()? That seems > strange. It's not, because it's not really meant to test the functionality of ceil() itself, but rather a bug in glsl-to-tgsi, which implemented it as -floor(-x), that causes the second negation to be lost if the result was used in a certain way, like the reciprocal here.
I just sent the test along to illustrate the bug my patch was supposed to fix, although including those kinds of failures in piglit would probably be a good idea, too. Of course testing multiple values, including fractional ones, won't harm either, even if it doesn't make a difference for that specific bug. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
