<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#c56">Comment # 56</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:siglesias@igalia.com" title="Samuel Iglesias <siglesias@igalia.com>"> <span class="fn">Samuel Iglesias</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>In our current implementation, the lowering passes for floor() and ceil() are
using trunc() to do part of the calculations. Previosly, we scalarized trunc()
implementation because of its use of nir_if instruction.
I scalarized both floor() and ceil() lowering passes under the hypothesis that
nir_bcsel only reads from one channel (like nir_if), because in both passes
there is at least one bcsel operation before calling trunc(). Now, the floor
and ceil tests pass for dvecN.
Is that assumption valid for nir_bcsel?</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>