On Friday 04 February 2005 18:43, Timothy Miller wrote:
> > > One simplification I've already done is to not account for overflow or
> > > underflow.  If the exponent goes below 0 or greater than 255, it
> > > wraps.  Is it reasonable to just hope that no one uses numbers that
> > > big or that small?
> > 
> > Wrapping overflow is probably unproblematic, but I'm worried about 
underflow
> > - even more so when you make 0 a really, really small number instead of
> > true 0. What happens when, in the rasterizer, R, dRdY and dRdX are all 
0?
> > Will the adjust code in HorizontalRasterize work correctly?
> 
> That would be an interesting scenario.  You'd accumulate error in the
> range of less than 2^-120.  When converting that directly to integer,
> it wouldn't be a problem, but if you were to multiply by a huge
> number, the result could be problematic.
> 
> I think this could be a bigger issue with coordinates at zero. 
> Fortunately, zero is smack between two pixel centers, so it would
> never cause a rounding problem.  0.5 would never be affected by this.

I'm not sure whether my concern got across. When you say the exponent wraps 
for underflow and overflow, I assume this means that if the result of an 
operation would be 2^-129, it comes out as 2^127 or something like this.

Now you say that you want to represent 0 as a very small number, let's say 
2^-127. What if dRdX is 0, and adj comes out as 0.25 = 2^-2. The result of 
the multiplication would be 2^-129, which wraps around to 2^127 - and 
*that* is definitely wrong...

It's that combination of incorrect underflow *and* incorrect 0 that I'm most 
worried about.

cu,
Nicolai

> I have the nagging feeling that this could cause a problem somewhere
> that would be noticable, but I just can't come up with a really good
> example of one.

Attachment: pgp4RDXk6mr7m.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)

Reply via email to