On Sep 21, 2015 9:48 PM, "Ilia Mirkin" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Ilia Mirkin
wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Matt Turner
wrote:
> >>> Previously we would not print a swizzle on ssa_52 when only its .x
> >>>
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
>>> Previously we would not print a swizzle on ssa_52 when only its .x
>>> component is used (as seen in the definition of ssa_53):
>
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
>> Previously we would not print a swizzle on ssa_52 when only its .x
>> component is used (as seen in the definition of ssa_53):
>>
>>vec3 ssa_52 = fadd ssa_51, ssa_51
>>vec1 ssa_53
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> Previously we would not print a swizzle on ssa_52 when only its .x
> component is used (as seen in the definition of ssa_53):
>
>vec3 ssa_52 = fadd ssa_51, ssa_51
>vec1 ssa_53 = flog2 ssa_52
>vec1 ssa_54 = flog2 ssa_52.y
>vec1
Previously we would not print a swizzle on ssa_52 when only its .x
component is used (as seen in the definition of ssa_53):
vec3 ssa_52 = fadd ssa_51, ssa_51
vec1 ssa_53 = flog2 ssa_52
vec1 ssa_54 = flog2 ssa_52.y
vec1 ssa_55 = flog2 ssa_52.z
But this makes the interpretation of the R