On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 02:10:19 +0100 "Ben Avison" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:30:23 +0100, Pekka Paalanen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > As samplers are allowed to fetch the pixel at x2 unconditionally, we > > require > > x1 >= 0 > > x2 < width > > I may be getting picky, but that's circular logic - the samplers are only > allowed to fetch the pixel at x2 unconditionally because of the way > BILINEAR_COVER_CLIP is defined in this piece of code, so you can't use it > as its own justification. As I wrote the commit log originally, the > premise is that some samplers expect to be able to fetch the pixel at x2 > unconditionally (on at least one axis) and the conclusion is that we need > to define BILINEAR_COVER_CLIP to allow that (for now). I don't think it matters which was first, it is circular to me. If you write a new fetcher, you see that you are allowed to fetch x2. If you poke with the flag logic like we do, you must account that fetchers fetch x2. :-) > How about: > Because samplers may fetch the pixel at x2 unconditionally, we require... Sure, I'll change that. > Other than that, the series looks good - good thinking about the impact > of projective transforms (though maybe someday that could do with a more > rigorous examination). > > Also good to see Bill's way of phrasing the ultimate aim - that it'll be > defined to be safe to fetch all pixels that have a non-zero weight - made > it into patch 2. I think it's a clear and concise description. Yup, it was a nice way to put it. > I had to look up what bikeshedding meant since you've used it a couple of > times - very apt. I'll have to drop it into conversation sometime :) Hehe. Ok, now just an ack from someone else, and I can push these ASAP. Thanks, pq
pgpKTx1vAqDwk.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pixman mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
