On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaeh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29.10.2015 10:24, Ivan Kalvachev wrote: > [snip] >> >> On 10/29/15, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaeh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 29.10.2015 01:52, Ivan Kalvachev wrote: >>>> >>>> On 10/26/15, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaeh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 25.10.2015 02:00, Ivan Kalvachev wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Some constants (like 1.0 and 0.5) could be inlined as immediate inputs >>>>>> without using their literal value. The >>>>>> r600_bytecode_special_constants() >>>>>> function emulates the negative of these constants by using NEG >>>>>> modifier. >>>>>> >>>>>> However some shaders define -1.0 constant and want to use it as 1.0. >>>>>> They do so by using ABS modifier. But >>>>>> r600_bytecode_special_constants() >>>>>> set NEG in addition to ABS. Since NEG modifier have priority over ABS >>>>>> one, >>>>>> we get -|1.0| as result, instead of |1.0|. >>>>>> >>>>>> The patch simply prevents the additional switching of NEG when ABS is >>>>>> set. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nice catch. Is there a simple test case (e.g. in piglit) that exposes >>>>> the incorrect behavior? >>>> >>>> >>>> Not that I know of. >>>> >>>> I've located the bug investigating visual problem in Nine. >>>> https://github.com/iXit/Mesa-3D/issues/126 >>>> https://github.com/iXit/Mesa-3D/issues/127 >>>> >>>> I also heard that it fixes artifacts in "Need for Speed: Undercover" >>>> and "Skyrim", once again, when using Nine. >>> >>> >>> I see. I guess it's not too surprising that Nine creates shaders that >>> look a bit different from the Mesa statetracker's. >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Nicolai Hähnle <nicolai.haeh...@amd.com> >>> >>> This should probably also go to stable. >>> >>> Do you need somebody to push this for you or can you do it yourself? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Nicolai >> >> >> Yes, please. >> I'm not developer and I cannot push it myself. > > > I pushed the patch. > > I am not familiar with patchwork yet and have a related question: on my > push, I got the following error message related to patchwork: > > remote: E: failed to find patch for rev > f75f21a24ae2dd83507f3d4d8007f0fcfe6db802 > > Apparently, patchwork didn't pick up Ivan's v3 patch,
Now you know why there are so many stale patches in patchwork... if the diff part of the commit doesn't match 100% to something in patchwork, the search fails. > perhaps because it > wasn't inline. Is this something to worry about? Specifically, I believe the > patch is a candidate for the stable branch, and I added the appropriate Cc: > in the commit message. Does the message above prevent it from being picked > up? Nope, all's well. Assuming that the thing you wanted to get pushed has been. Patchwork isn't part of any "official" process, just a convenience tool. -ilia _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
