> 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.
k, I'll just push that last patch then. If someone won't like it or we'll decide to do it in some other way we can always redo it later. For now this will be enough to fix the umad handling. z _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
