Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
Errata. I found, that I was checked CHECK_FPUCLAMPHACK values at old revisions
-- and
if I am unchecked it version 104 have the same trouble than 106. Even more, I
found
the reason of that's unwanted behavior -- it's on line 943 in rev 106:
ClampValues(recCommutativeOp(info, EEREC_D, 1));
was not changed to ClampValues2 when 106 applied. Right now this is line 1478.
If I
change this to ClampValues2 (so it call the same function as in 104), picture
return
to rev 104 variant. And but there is another way to rule this fucntion -- by
Disable
extra FPU flags variable. In ver 106 turning ON this flag lead to normal
picture, but
in ver 343 you should turn OFF this flag. It's little weird and, as I think,
show
that something is not good in this case.
Original comment by Zeydl...@gmail.com
on 28 Nov 2008 at 12:52
so are you able to get a working picture by messing around with the "Disable
Extra
FPU flags variable"?
for now messing around with the hack option is the best way to solve this
problem.
the real way to solve it, requires exception handling for SSE instructions; but
this
isn't implemented yet.
Original comment by cottonvibes
on 2 Dec 2008 at 9:54
Agreed.
Original comment by Zeydl...@gmail.com
on 2 Dec 2008 at 10:19
Setting this to low priority. It can be circumvented with some speedhack use
(albeit
inconvenient) for the time being. It's something we'd like to address in the
future
but there are still too many other problems with emu stability that need to get
looked at first.
Original comment by Jake.Stine
on 7 Dec 2008 at 4:19
can you see if the problem is fixed in revision r439, using extra FPU overflow
checking (setting the grey-checkbox for the 2nd speedhack)
Original comment by cottonvibes
on 16 Dec 2008 at 8:34
Yes, if this check box is off or greyed -- this issue resolved.
Original comment by Zeydl...@gmail.com
on 16 Dec 2008 at 8:48
thank you for testing, thats good news then.
Original comment by cottonvibes
on 16 Dec 2008 at 7:20
Original comment by cottonvibes
on 19 Dec 2008 at 7:41
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
Zeydl...@gmail.com
on 27 Nov 2008 at 11:56Attachments: