Hi, thanks for review!
On 27 October 2014 18:50, Bill Spitzak <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 10/15/2014 01:16 AM, Marek Chalupa wrote: > >> + shadow_height = height / 2; >> + >> + /* when the height is odd, we need some part of >> the >> + * shadow to be one pixel higher. Let's choose the >> + * upper one */ >> + if (height % 2 != 0 && !fy) >> + ++shadow_height; >> > > This does the same thing: > shadow_height = (height + (fy ? 0 : 1)) / 2; > Thinking about that, fy is always 0 or 1, so it will work even without the ternary operator. And if we want to be really sure that fy is 0 or 1 (even when somebody will change its values range) we can do: shadow_height = (height + !fy) / 2; It definitely looks better than the former code. > If there is any chance height is negative you want to use >>1 rather than > /2. This is because it always rounds in the same direction (down rather > than toward zero). I don't think negative height happens here, however. > Good point. Hypothetically, the height can be negative, because its given from the client - but then the mistake is on the client's side and it would break much more things than one-pixel error in shadow. Maybe we should add a check for negative values, but that belongs in another patch. I gonna go for /2 because it does the same thing (assuming correct input) and it is more readable. > _______________________________________________ > wayland-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel > Thanks! Marek
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
