On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Zack Rusin <za...@vmware.com> wrote: >> 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. >
I don't like this, sorry for being slow :-) Mainly because I don't think any hw has the ability to apply negate on non-float instructions (at least radeon doesn't), and I'd like gallium to be an interface that reflects the hw. Granted the hw also doesn't have IMAD/UMAD was have to decompose those anyways. Dave. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
