On 05/07/2012 04:16 PM, Christoph Bumiller wrote:
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.
We *have* a bunch of ceil tests in piglit. What Eric wanted to know was
whether or not the existing tests already reproduce the failure. If
they do not, then they should be extended.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
