> I guess ideally you'd generate code which actually clamps to the max int
value representable instead
Yes, that would be more complex to generate.
Jose
From: Roland Scheidegger
Sent: 07 November 2014 21:40
To: Jose Fonseca; mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.or
Looks good to me though I barely understand the code there...
I guess ideally you'd generate code which actually clamps to the max int
value representable instead, but that probably would get even more messy
(something like:
val = MAX(src[0], -2147483648.0f)
if (src[0] >= 2147483648.0f) val = 21474
From: José Fonseca
Use clamping constants that guarantee no integer overflows.
As spotted by Chris Forbes.
This causes the code to change as:
- value |= (uint32_t)CLAMP(src[0], 0.0f, 4294967295.0f);
+ value |= (uint32_t)CLAMP(src[0], 0.0f, 4294967040.0f);
- value |= (u
