On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Patrick Baggett
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:31 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:31:59 -0600
>> Brian Paul wrote:
>>
>> > When computing a matrix inverse, if the determinant is too small we
>> > could hit
>> > a divide by zero. Th
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:31 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:31:59 -0600
> Brian Paul wrote:
>
> > When computing a matrix inverse, if the determinant is too small we
> could hit
> > a divide by zero. There's a check to prevent this (we basically give up
> on
> > computing th
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:31:59 -0600
Brian Paul wrote:
> When computing a matrix inverse, if the determinant is too small we could hit
> a divide by zero. There's a check to prevent this (we basically give up on
> computing the inverse and return the identity matrix.) This patches loosens
> this
When computing a matrix inverse, if the determinant is too small we could hit
a divide by zero. There's a check to prevent this (we basically give up on
computing the inverse and return the identity matrix.) This patch loosens
this test to fix a lighting bug reported by Lars Henning Wendt.
v2: u
When computing a matrix inverse, if the determinant is too small we could hit
a divide by zero. There's a check to prevent this (we basically give up on
computing the inverse and return the identity matrix.) This patches loosens
this test to fix a lighting bug reported by Lars Henning Wendt.
NOT
