Am 02.05.2013 03:13, schrieb Zack Rusin: > It's valid. Some shaders do the negation on unsigned and then > use the results in opcodes taking signed integers. > > Signed-off-by: Zack Rusin <za...@vmware.com> > --- > src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi.c > b/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi.c > index 7255d97..66ff14c 100644 > --- a/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi.c > +++ b/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi.c > @@ -339,9 +339,9 @@ lp_build_emit_fetch( > assert(0); > break; > case TGSI_TYPE_SIGNED: > + case TGSI_TYPE_UNSIGNED: > res = lp_build_negate( &bld_base->int_bld, res ); > break; > - case TGSI_TYPE_UNSIGNED: > case TGSI_TYPE_VOID: > default: > assert(0); >
Hmm are you sure we don't just have some opcodes incorrectly classified? When I checked sm4 opcodes none of the unsigned ones seemed to have negation listed as valid (and I don't think we'd need it for glsl - seems a bit odd to allow negation there). Rest of the series looks good. Roland _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
