On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:53:17 +0300
Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:18:18 +1000
> Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 17 June 2016 at 00:13, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > > I believe Pixman is the most future-proof approach, so I went with that,
> > > and
> > > started doing
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:18:18 +1000
Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 17 June 2016 at 00:13, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > I believe Pixman is the most future-proof approach, so I went with that, and
> > started doing everything in pixman_image_t's.
> >
> > The patch series works in simple steps: fir
Hi,
On 17 June 2016 at 00:13, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> I believe Pixman is the most future-proof approach, so I went with that, and
> started doing everything in pixman_image_t's.
>
> The patch series works in simple steps: first introduce a struct buffer, which
> contains a pixman_image_t and a w
From: Pekka Paalanen
Hi,
I wanted to refactor the test code handling pixel buffers to use more
appropriate data structures. A key to that is to pick a representation of an
image. Our current representation cannot deal with arbitrary strides or pixel
formats other than a8r8g8b8.
There were three
