<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Ian Romanick <<a href="mailto:idr@freedesktop.org" target="_blank">idr@freedesktop.org</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 03/23/2016 08:09 PM, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > Is there a 64-bit pow in GLSL? If so, this is the right implementation. There isn't. But there also aren't double versions of sin or cos, and 9076c4e2 added those. However, it didn't add double versions of fexp2 or flog2 (both of which are not supported in GLSL). Ugh... it also did not add double versions of frsq or fsqrt... which are supported in GLSL. So, there are some extra functions and some missing functions. My gut tells me we should just do all of them so that people don't have to think about which ones should / shouldn't be implemented. </blockquote><div> </div><div>That seems reasonable. Either that or flag those opcodes as only supporting 32-bit types for now. I think I'd rather just implement them if it's not too much work. You know someone's going to write a an fp64_pow extension some day... </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Looking more closely... I think fabs, fnot, fsign, and fsat should have explicit double support as well... it seems the existing implementations of both of these will cause some small values to be incorrectly "flushed" to zero. What are the rules in C when you compare a double variable with a single constant? void foo(double d) { /* Does d get converted to single, or does 0.0f get converted to * double? */ if (d == 0.0f) printf("zero\n"); } > Reviewed-by: Jason Ekstrand <<a href="mailto:jason@jlekstrand.net">jason@jlekstrand.net</a> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:jason@jlekstrand.net">jason@jlekstrand.net</a>>> > > On Mar 23, 2016 7:42 PM, "Ian Romanick" <<a href="mailto:idr@freedesktop.org">idr@freedesktop.org</a> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:idr@freedesktop.org">idr@freedesktop.org</a>>> wrote: > > From: Ian Romanick <<a href="mailto:ian.d.romanick@intel.com">ian.d.romanick@intel.com</a> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:ian.d.romanick@intel.com">ian.d.romanick@intel.com</a>>> > > Found (randomly) by inspection. Looking at the rest of the changes in > this file in commit 9076c4e2, I'm certain this is what was intended. > > Signed-off-by: Ian Romanick <<a href="mailto:ian.d.romanick@intel.com">ian.d.romanick@intel.com</a> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:ian.d.romanick@intel.com">ian.d.romanick@intel.com</a>>> > Cc: Connor Abbott <<a href="mailto:cwabbott0@gmail.com">cwabbott0@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwabbott0@gmail.com">cwabbott0@gmail.com</a>>> > Cc: <a href="mailto:mesa-stable@lists.freedesktop.org">mesa-stable@lists.freedesktop.org</a> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:mesa-stable@lists.freedesktop.org">mesa-stable@lists.freedesktop.org</a>> > --- > src/compiler/nir/nir_opcodes.py | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/src/compiler/nir/nir_opcodes.py > b/src/compiler/nir/nir_opcodes.py > index 553f924..ac59130 100644 > --- a/src/compiler/nir/nir_opcodes.py > +++ b/src/compiler/nir/nir_opcodes.py > @@ -520,7 +520,7 @@ for (int i = 0; i < 32; i += 8) { > } > """) > > -binop("fpow", tfloat, "", "bit_size == 64 ? powf(src0, src1) : > pow(src0, src1)") > +binop("fpow", tfloat, "", "bit_size == 64 ? pow(src0, src1) : > powf(src0, src1)") > > binop_horiz("pack_half_2x16_split", 1, tuint32, 1, tfloat32, 1, > tfloat32, > "pack_half_1x16(src0.x) | (pack_half_1x16(src1.x) << 16)") > -- > 2.5.5 > > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > <a href="mailto:mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org">mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org">mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org</a>> > <a href="https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev</a> </blockquote></div> </div></div>