<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Add FP64 support to the i965 shader backends"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92760#c47">Comment # 47</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Add FP64 support to the i965 shader backends"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92760">bug 92760</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:cwabbott0@gmail.com" title="Connor Abbott <cwabbott0@gmail.com>"> <span class="fn">Connor Abbott</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to Iago Toral from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=92760#c46">comment #46</a>)
<span class="quote">> I was thinking that since we want to make some modifications to
> lower_vec_to_movs for dvec3 and dvec4 that are really specific for Intel
> (they are only needed to play along with brw_nir_split_doubles) we should
> make that work under a compiler option. Actually, I was wondering if we
> should move the split_doubles pass to NIR as well and make it run or not
> based on the same compiler option. Does this make sense to you?</span >
Yeah, that probably makes sense. In case NIR-to-TGSI ever happens they'll want
to do something similar as well.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>