On 11/16/2014 05:51 PM, Thomas Helland wrote:
> They are bound between -1 and 1, so report that.
> ---
> src/glsl/opt_minmax.cpp | 13 +++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/src/glsl/opt_minmax.cpp b/src/glsl/opt_minmax.cpp
> index 111d183..341006e 100644
> --- a/src/glsl/opt_minmax.cpp
> +++ b/src/glsl/opt_minmax.cpp
> @@ -271,6 +271,10 @@ get_range(ir_rvalue *rval)
> minmax_range r0;
> minmax_range r1;
>
> + void *mem_ctx = ralloc_parent(rval);
I would constify this (as 'void *const mem_ctx') to avoid accidental,
unintentional assignments from being added later. We use mem_ctx a lot
as a name, and this has happened before with nested scopes. I know
others on the project may not agree with me here...
> + ir_constant *low = NULL;
> + ir_constant *high = NULL;
> +
> if(expr) {
> switch(expr->operation) {
> case ir_binop_min:
> @@ -279,6 +283,15 @@ get_range(ir_rvalue *rval)
> r1 = get_range(expr->operands[1]);
> return combine_range(r0, r1, expr->operation == ir_binop_min);
>
> + case ir_unop_sin:
> + case ir_unop_sin_reduced:
> + case ir_unop_cos:
> + case ir_unop_cos_reduced:
> + case ir_unop_sign:
> + high = new(mem_ctx) ir_constant(1.0f);
> + low = new(mem_ctx) ir_constant(-1.0f);
> + return minmax_range(low, high);
> +
Why not just
return minmax_range(new(mem_ctx) ir_constant(1.0f),
new(mem_ctx) ir_constant(-1.0f));
> default:
> break;
> }
>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
