Jason Ekstrand ja...@jlekstrand.net writes:
On Jul 9, 2015 7:57 AM, Francisco Jerez curroje...@riseup.net wrote:
We were passing src0 alpha and oMask in reverse order. There seems to
be no good way to pass them in the correct order to the new-style
LOAD_PAYLOAD (how surprising) because src0
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Francisco Jerez curroje...@riseup.net wrote:
Jason Ekstrand ja...@jlekstrand.net writes:
On Jul 9, 2015 7:57 AM, Francisco Jerez curroje...@riseup.net wrote:
We were passing src0 alpha and oMask in reverse order. There seems to
be no good way to pass them in
Jason Ekstrand ja...@jlekstrand.net writes:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Francisco Jerez curroje...@riseup.net
wrote:
Jason Ekstrand ja...@jlekstrand.net writes:
On Jul 9, 2015 7:57 AM, Francisco Jerez curroje...@riseup.net wrote:
We were passing src0 alpha and oMask in reverse order.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Francisco Jerez curroje...@riseup.net wrote:
Jason Ekstrand ja...@jlekstrand.net writes:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Francisco Jerez curroje...@riseup.net
wrote:
Jason Ekstrand ja...@jlekstrand.net writes:
On Jul 9, 2015 7:57 AM, Francisco Jerez
We were passing src0 alpha and oMask in reverse order. There seems to
be no good way to pass them in the correct order to the new-style
LOAD_PAYLOAD (how surprising) because src0 alpha is per-channel while
oMask is not. Just split src0 alpha in fixed-width registers and pass
them to LOAD_PAYLOAD
On Jul 9, 2015 7:57 AM, Francisco Jerez curroje...@riseup.net wrote:
We were passing src0 alpha and oMask in reverse order. There seems to
be no good way to pass them in the correct order to the new-style
LOAD_PAYLOAD (how surprising) because src0 alpha is per-channel while
oMask is not.
