Any comment or is this okay with people? Given, "(1-t)*a + t*b", the
original code didn't return b for t=1 because it's "floating-point".
Marek
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Marek Olšák <marek.ol...@amd.com>
>
> The previous version has precision issues. This can be a problem
> with tessellation. Sadly, I can't find the article where I read it
> anymore. I'm not sure if the unsafe-fp-math flag would be enough to revert
> this.
> ---
> src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c | 13 +++++++------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c
> b/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c
> index 0ad78b0..512558b 100644
> --- a/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c
> +++ b/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_tgsi_action.c
> @@ -538,12 +538,13 @@ lrp_emit(
> struct lp_build_tgsi_context * bld_base,
> struct lp_build_emit_data * emit_data)
> {
> - LLVMValueRef tmp;
> - tmp = lp_build_emit_llvm_binary(bld_base, TGSI_OPCODE_SUB,
> - emit_data->args[1],
> - emit_data->args[2]);
> - emit_data->output[emit_data->chan] = lp_build_emit_llvm_ternary(bld_base,
> - TGSI_OPCODE_MAD, emit_data->args[0], tmp,
> emit_data->args[2]);
> + struct lp_build_context *bld = &bld_base->base;
> + LLVMValueRef inv, a, b;
> +
> + inv = lp_build_sub(bld, bld_base->base.one, emit_data->args[0]);
> + a = lp_build_mul(bld, emit_data->args[1], emit_data->args[0]);
> + b = lp_build_mul(bld, emit_data->args[2], inv);
> + emit_data->output[emit_data->chan] = lp_build_add(bld, a, b);
> }
>
> /* TGSI_OPCODE_MAD */
> --
> 2.1.4
>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
