On 04/09/2015 09:37 AM, Matt Turner wrote: > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Ian Romanick <i...@freedesktop.org> wrote: >> From: Ian Romanick <ian.d.roman...@intel.com> >> >> This is similar to commit (47c4b38: i965/fs: Allow CSE to handle MULs >> with negated arguments.), but it uses a slightly different approach. > > Just repeating myself... I don't know why this is different if it > doesn't do something more. Anyway,
Readability and extensibility. Keeping the "are these negated operations" and "do negated operands produce the same result" logic separate, it's easier to see what's going on, and it's easier to add to it later. It also matched the way I did the (currently NAK'ed) changes at the GLSL level, so my brain was already in that space. > Reviewed-by: Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
