On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> In the specification text of NV_vertex_program1_1, the upper
> limit of the RCC instruction is written as 1.884467e+19 in
> scientific notation, but as 0x5F80 in binary. But the binary
> version translates to 1.84467e+19 rather than 1.884
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Brian Paul wrote:
> On 02/06/2014 09:09 AM, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
>>
>> In the specification text of NV_vertex_program1_1, the upper
>> limit of the RCC instruction is written as 1.884467e+19 in
>> scientific notation, but as 0x5F80 in binary. But the binary
>>
On 02/06/2014 09:09 AM, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
In the specification text of NV_vertex_program1_1, the upper
limit of the RCC instruction is written as 1.884467e+19 in
scientific notation, but as 0x5F80 in binary. But the binary
version translates to 1.84467e+19 rather than 1.884467e+19 in
scie
In the specification text of NV_vertex_program1_1, the upper
limit of the RCC instruction is written as 1.884467e+19 in
scientific notation, but as 0x5F80 in binary. But the binary
version translates to 1.84467e+19 rather than 1.884467e+19 in
scientific notation.
Since the lower-limit equals 2
