Am 02.05.2013 18:16, schrieb Zack Rusin: > ----- Original Message ----- >>> I don't oppose either. Integer signedness has always been too loose for us >>> to be pedantic about it here. >>> >> >> Ok. We should update tgsi docs to reflect that, however. >> Note that we already moved some opcodes (ok only one, uadd) to the >> signed section in infer_src_type() for exactly this reason but yes >> that's a hack too, might as well move it back then for consistency. > > How about the attached patch. LGTM. Maybe we should restrict modifiers to less instructions (e.g. only allowed on "math" instructions, not logic ops) if someone has a problem doing it, but this seems largely independent of signed/unsigned type.
> > To be honest, from just looking at the code, I think that adding instructions > that explicitly work on signed integers would be cleaner (i.e. add IMAD and > IADD). Well in contrast to the IF/UIF they'd be really redundant unless I'm missing something so just for supporting negation on inputs or not this looks like not really worth it (and as said there are also other signed instructions where supporting negation doesn't really make sense). OTOH you're right it would be just 3 more instructions (imul/iadd/imad) I believe so it wouldn't be too bad. But I'm fine with just supporting negation on unsigned instructions, after all it's just two's complement negation regardless if it's signed or not. And just document these umul functions work for both signed and unsigned. Roland _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
