On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 12:00 +0100, Juan A. Suarez Romero wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 11:34 +0100, Juan A. Suarez Romero wrote:
> > > The above does not necessarily sum to "we shouldn't fix it" but it
> > > probably does mean it's low-priority at best and we need to be careful.
> > >
> > > Looking a bit into the math of atan2, I'm not convinced flushing denorms
> > > to zero is actually what we want to do. For x, I think it's valid, but
> > > as y approaches 0, you get +/- pi/2 depending on whether y positive or
> > > negative. As both approach zero, it's undefined. As you approach
> > > infinity, it approaches something in the interval [-pi/2, pi/2] but it
> > > depends on the direction of approach. If you do "man atan2" you'll see
> > > this all layed out in a horrifying amount of detail (somewhere around a
> > > dozen different cases).
> > >
> >
> > Yes, originally I only flushed 'x'. But then also flushed 'y' to keep
> > coherence. But didn't think about that corner case you mention. I think we
> > can remove the flush to 0 in 'y'.
>
> Actually, after doing a couple of tests more, I don't think we need to flush
> 'x' any more.
>
> The thing is that originally I added the flush to 0 to solve a couple of
> cases from Vulkan CTS atan2 tests. But later I modified the code to cope with
> infinities, which lead a refactoring of code. I think this refactoring made
> the flush to 0 not required any more.
>
> I've run the tests again getting rid of both flushes, and seems results are
> exactly the same as with the flush. So maybe they are not required after all.
>
I'm sending a new version that just gets rid of denorm_{x,y}.
J.A.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
