Thanks Neil!
Reviewed-by: Iago Toral Quiroga
Maybe we need other drivers (radv?) to double-check that this doesn't
break stuff for them either?
Iago
On Tue, 2018-04-24 at 16:55 +0200, Neil Roberts wrote:
> For all of the OpFOrd* comparisons except OpFOrdNotEqual the hardware
> should probably
Reviewed-by: Bas Nieuwenhuizen
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 7:55 AM, Neil Roberts wrote:
> For all of the OpFOrd* comparisons except OpFOrdNotEqual the hardware
> should probably already return false if one of the operands is NaN so
> we don’t need to have an explicit check for it. This seems to at l
For all of the OpFOrd* comparisons except OpFOrdNotEqual the hardware
should probably already return false if one of the operands is NaN so
we don’t need to have an explicit check for it. This seems to at least
work on Intel hardware. This should reduce the number of instructions
generated for the