On Monday, February 8, 2016 4:01:37 PM PST Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 01:59 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 4, 2016 5:48:00 PM PST Matt Turner wrote:
> >> The next patch adds an algebraic rule that uses the constant 0xff00ff00.
> >>
> >> Without this change, the build fails with
> >>
> >> return hex(struct.unpack('I', struct.pack('i', self.value))[0])
> >> struct.error: 'i' format requires -2147483648 <= number <= 2147483647
> >>
> >> The hex() function handles integers of any size, and assigning a
> >> negative value to an unsigned does what we want in C. The pack/unpack is
> >> unnecessary (and as we see, buggy).
> >> ---
> >> src/compiler/nir/nir_algebraic.py | 5 +----
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/src/compiler/nir/nir_algebraic.py
> >> b/src/compiler/nir/nir_algebraic.py index 77ad35e..2357b57 100644
> >> --- a/src/compiler/nir/nir_algebraic.py
> >> +++ b/src/compiler/nir/nir_algebraic.py
> >> @@ -102,13 +102,10 @@ class Constant(Value):
> >> self.value = val
> >>
> >> def __hex__(self):
> >> - # Even if it's an integer, we still need to unpack as an unsigned
> >> - # int. This is because, without C99, we can only assign to the
> >> first
> >> - # element of a union in an initializer.
> >> if isinstance(self.value, (bool)):
> >> return 'NIR_TRUE' if self.value else 'NIR_FALSE'
> >> if isinstance(self.value, (int, long)):
> >> - return hex(struct.unpack('I', struct.pack('i', self.value))[0])
> >> + return hex(self.value)
> >> elif isinstance(self.value, float):
> >> return hex(struct.unpack('I', struct.pack('f', self.value))[0])
> >> else:
> >
> > FWIW, I sent a patch to fix this on January 19th which went unreviewed:
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2016-January/105387.html
>
> I was going to R-b it... After you NAKed the second patch in the series
> I waited for v2.Oh. Sorry for the confusion. That series was actually fine - I just had a fabs/iabs mixup. With that fixed, everything worked fine, and I considered it out for review again. I suppose I should just re-send it.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
